get_synthesis_errors_parsed

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It adds real context ('plus those of every failed run (e.g. out-of-context IP runs)') and implies a read-only error-digging operation, but never confirms it is side-effect free, how large the result can get (max_items default 50 is only in the schema), or what a 'structured error' record contains.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the when-to-use instruction. Every clause carries information: default run, failed-run inclusion, and the triggering scenario.

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 no output schema, the description does need to characterize the return value; it does so at a high level ('structured errors and critical warnings', 'clean actionable list') though it never sketches the record shape. Covering both the default-run and failed-run-union behavior makes it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both properties documented including their defaults, so the schema already does the work. The description reinforces the 'synth_1' default and explains that failed runs are implicitly included, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns structured errors and critical warnings from a run's log, with a documented default (synth_1), and additionally aggregates errors from every failed run. This is meaningfully distinct from the generic sibling get_messages, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after run_synthesis fails to get a clean actionable list,' which gives the trigger condition and the sibling it follows. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name get_messages as the alternative for general log reading, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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