syncthing_system_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond this: no indication of whether errors are historical, current, capped, or how the optional instance selector changes behavior.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; two words carry no information beyond the tool name. There is nothing to front-load because nothing is stated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape and error semantics, and it conveys none. With undocumented parameters and a rich sibling set, the definition is far too thin for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Two parameters (fields, instance) with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The schema only reveals types/defaults, so the agent cannot know what "fields" projects or what an instance identifier refers to.

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?

"System errors." restates the tool name's resource but supplies no verb or scope, so an agent cannot tell what is actually returned (error log entries? current error state? counts?). It also does not distinguish this from the sibling syncthing_folder_errors.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With close siblings like syncthing_system_health, syncthing_system_status, and syncthing_folder_errors, the agent has nothing to route on.

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