cmw_get_error

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

The description confirms the read-only nature consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns all errors or clears the queue, behavior when empty). The annotation lowers the burden, but the description adds minimal additional transparency.

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: a single sentence. While there is no wasted text, it fails to include essential information about parameters or behavior, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 lacks information about return values, error handling, and parameter usage. For a tool with two optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for correct usage.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (alias and params_json). The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 '读取 CMW 错误队列' clearly indicates a read operation on the CMW error queue, specifying the verb (读取/read) and resource (CMW 错误队列/CMW error queue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mxa_get_error, though the use of Chinese may reduce clarity for non-Chinese-speaking agents.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like mxa_get_error or ps_get_error, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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