read_ide_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly frames the tool as a read operation and explains that it returns source code around the given lines, but it does not state side-effect guarantees, file-resolution rules, or context limits. For a simple read tool, the core behavior is disclosed but not deeply.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, trigger, then parameter documentation with an embedded example. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers why, when, and how to call it. It does not describe error behavior or how much source context is returned, but those are not essential 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?

Both parameters are documented with practical meanings and a concrete example, which strongly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. The only weakness is that the schema declares errors as a string while the description presents it as a JSON array, leaving serialization format implicit.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation and resource: reading source code around compiler error locations. The workflow sentence ties it to parsed IDE-screenshot error locations, making its role distinct from compile, run, and screenshot siblings.

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?

It gives explicit invocation context—after spotting errors in an IDE screenshot, pass parsed error locations—and even includes an example payload. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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