game_get_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important stateful behavior: only new messages since the previous invocation are returned. However, it does not state what happens on the first call, whether reading consumes/clears the messages, or what the return format is.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. The key qualifier ('since last call') appears before any ambiguity can form.

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 zero-parameter getter this is nearly complete: an agent knows what to call and roughly what it will get back. The main omissions are first-call behavior and output structure, which would matter if a caller needs to parse the messages.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds relevant behavioral context about the implicit call-tracking state.

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 description names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('push_error/push_warning messages'), and a scope ('since last call'). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from broader logging siblings like game_get_logs or get_debug_output.

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 stateful phrase 'since last call' implies this is a polling-style call for incremental errors/warnings, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage must be inferred rather than stated.

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