find_error_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic but does not state whether it recurses the whole hierarchy or only under root_path, whether it triggers cooking, or whether it is expensive on large scenes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but there is no wasted language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a scene-scanning tool the missing recursion/scope semantics around root_path and the absence of any behavioral context leave the definition only minimally 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?

The single parameter root_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it - it never explains that root_path scopes the scan or whether the scan includes descendants. With one undocumented parameter, the description must compensate and does not.

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 ('Scan') and resource ('node hierarchy') with a clear target ('cook errors and warnings'), which distinguishes it from the name-based find_nodes sibling. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the diagnostic purpose is 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as find_nodes, get_cook_chain, or explain_node, which are the obvious adjacent debugging tools. An agent must infer that this is a debugging tool from purpose alone.

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