get_errors

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination and that it reads 'error and fatal logs', but does not clarify if the buffer is cleared upon read, whether results are filtered to only errors/fatal by default, or if the tool is read-only. Basic transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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 sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It is concise, but the lack of additional detail (e.g., parameter explanations) suggests it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain pagination mechanics, parameter usage, return format, or error behavior, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter. 'Cursor-based pagination' hints at 'sinceCursor' but provides no details on its format or usage. Without any parameter guidance, the agent cannot correctly invoke the 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 clearly states that the tool reads buffered error and fatal logs using cursor-based pagination. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('error and fatal logs'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_logs' which may read all logs.

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 like 'get_logs' or 'get_network_requests'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, which leaves the agent without context for selection.

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