editor_get_errors

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' the list, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether reading affects the list (e.g., clearing), or any other side effects. For a parameterless getter, this is minimally adequate but still thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks detail about the returned data structure or exact log scope, but these are minor gaps given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 no parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete (empty schema). The description adds meaning by clarifying what 'current editor error/log list' refers to, which is sufficient for a resource-identifying tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies a clear resource: 'current editor error/log list'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'editor_clear_errors' by implying retrieval rather than clearing, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., editor running) or exclusions. The single sentence simply states the action.

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