error_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, what authentication or permissions are needed, or any limitations (e.g., input size, error handling). Only the mode and default are mentioned, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the most important information (tool purpose and merger) and quickly details the mode sub-functions. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context about modes but lacks details on output formats (beyond mentioning Markdown for summary), error handling, and prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 100% description coverage, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It explains the mode parameter's options, which the schema also does. The description does not provide additional meaning for other parameters (limit, errors, format, errorType) beyond what is already in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose as an error analysis tool that merges two previous tools (error_fix_suggestion and error_summary_md). It specifies two modes: fix (generating fix suggestions from error logs) and summary (generating error summary Markdown reports). The verb 'analyze' and the resource 'errors' are implicit but clearly communicated.

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 mentions that the tool merged error_fix_suggestion and error_summary_md, implying it should be used instead of those. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like browser_errors or other error-related tools. The distinction is implicit through the mode parameter.

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