scanner_errors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It usefully adds that the list is 'current' (live/transient rather than historical), but does not say whether errors persist, are cleared on read, or are scoped to the instrument session.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so naming the three returned fields (type, errorLevel, description) is genuinely valuable compensation. What is missing is small but real: nothing about whether the list can be empty, how errors age out, or how this differs from scanner_status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the instrument's current error list') and even enumerates the returned fields (type, errorLevel, description). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from ambiguous siblings like scanner_status, which an agent might reasonably confuse with an error-retrieval tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'current error list' suggests troubleshooting/diagnostic use, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use scanner_status instead for...' guidance. With a sibling set of eleven scanner tools including a status tool, an explicit boundary would have real value.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.