get_editor_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully lists three distinct sources (editor log file, script editor compile markers, debugger Errors tab), which adds context. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how 'recent' is defined, whether errors and warnings are merged, or what the response format looks like.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the sources of errors. However, it omits details about the parameter and the return format, leaving the agent to guess at important behavioral specifics. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter 'max_lines', and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter's meaning must be inferred from its name and default value. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, the agent receives no explicit guidance on this parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Collect') and identifies the exact resource ('recent editor errors and warnings') and the sources (log file, script editor compile markers, debugger Errors tab). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like get_output_log or get_editor_performance.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need recent editor errors/warnings) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_output_log or get_editor_performance. It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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