get_runtime_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the source (preview iframe), the event types, and the available error fields, plus the 'recent' and 'when available' caveats. It does not mention ordering, retention limits, or whether retrieval has side effects, but for a read-only error lookup the description is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output fields; the second provides the key usage scenario. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, source context, and a clear trigger for use. The optional parameters are well documented in the schema. The only notable gap is not addressing how this tool relates to sibling tools such as get_event_log or tail_events, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions, ranges, and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable because the schema fully carries that weight.

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 returns runtime errors and unhandled-rejection events from the preview iframe, with a specific verb and resource. It is easy to tell it is error-focused, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_event_log or tail_events.

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 a direct usage cue: 'Use this when the user reports a broken preview or you want to see what just crashed.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternative event/log tools.

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