current_error_info

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns error information, but does not disclose what happens when no error exists (e.g., returns null, empty string, or throws). It also does not mention any side effects or requirements, such as the role of session_id. The behavior is underspecified.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Efficiency is excellent, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

For a tool that returns error information with an optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of the error information, what constitutes an error, or how session_id affects the result. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what to expect. The description should clarify these aspects.

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 sole parameter session_id has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent has no idea what session_id does, whether it is optional (though required=0 suggests it is), or what the default 'default-18' means. This is a critical gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action (return) and the resource (current 1C script error information) and the context (displayed in the tested client). It distinguishes from siblings like user_messages by focusing specifically on script errors, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_messages or client_busy_status. The phrase 'if any' implies it handles absence of errors, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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