km_get_errors

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

Description discloses output structure (grouped by macro, timestamps, messages) but does not mention side effects or safety. No annotations exist, so description carries burden; missing explicit statement that this is a read-only operation with no destructive effects.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous words. The key purpose and return structure are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (errors grouped by macro with timestamps and messages). It could mention the structure of the grouping, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 has one parameter 'hours' with a description that matches the tool description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'recent errors from Keyboard Maestro Engine log', distinguishing it from sibling tools like km_get_log which retrieves all log entries. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage: use this to get errors rather than general logs. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The context from sibling names provides implicit differentiation.

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