get_error_catalog

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

No annotations provided, but the description sufficiently discloses the behavior: listing error classes with args. Since it's a read-only operation with no parameters, no additional behavioral traits are needed.

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?

Single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. No extraneous information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose adequately for a list tool.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so baseline 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required.

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?

Description clearly states it lists pylzt's typed error classes and their carried args. Specific verb 'list' and resource 'typed error classes' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_run or list_subscriptions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, as a simple list tool with no parameters, its usage is implicitly clear, but it lacks context on when to choose it over other listing tools.

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