get_build_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves errors from the latest build, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify what happens when no build exists or if there are side effects. It adds parameter details but lacks broader behavioral context.

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 concise with a brief header and list of parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating the main purpose from parameter details) could improve clarity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's core functionality and parameters adequately. However, it could be more complete by noting that it only works on the latest build and what constitutes 'parsed build errors'.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: module (filter by source file path), severity ('error' or 'warning'), and limit (default 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 clearly states 'Get parsed build errors from the latest build', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_build_status or get_build_summary, which focus on status or summary rather than 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving errors from the latest build, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like search_build_output or get_log_categories. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are given.

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