get_plsql_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation and the scope (all schemas when no schema given) is noted, but there is no mention of permissions, result limits, pagination, or volume of output.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource before the filters and use case. Nothing needs trimming and the important information comes first.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what to expect and when it matters. It could be more complete by clarifying how it relates to sibling tools that report invalid or dependent objects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the enumerated type list. The description merely restates that schema, name, and type are optional filters without adding format or behavioral detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('compilation errors of PL/SQL units') and enumerates the covered object kinds (procedures, functions, packages, triggers, types). The purpose is immediately clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_invalid_objects or describe_plsql.

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?

'Critical for diagnosing broken code' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as list_invalid_objects. Usage is left to inference from the purpose statement.

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