td_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but omits critical details such as return format, recursion behavior, how depth is interpreted, and what constitutes an 'erroring op'. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but the brevity borders on under-specification. It earns high marks for conciseness but not for structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations. It lacks any behavioral details, edge-case handling, or parameter explanations. It is a minimal viable description but leaves substantial gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints that 'path' corresponds to the 'parent' parameter, but the 'depth' parameter is completely unexplained. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names and defaults.

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 'All erroring ops under a path' clearly indicates the tool returns erroring operations under a given path. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, preferred contexts, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of what it does, with no usage scenarios.

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