api_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists errors but doesn't disclose whether it clears errors, whether errors persist across calls, how 'recent' is defined, or whether the list is ordered. The description is a simple read operation but lacks behavioral details like retention or ordering.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists error categories efficiently. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a brief note about the limit parameter without becoming verbose.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but incomplete. It fails to explain the 'limit' parameter, the ordering of results, or how this relates to sibling tools like api_clear_errors. An agent would need to guess at the parameter semantics and result format.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'limit' controls the number of errors returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter.

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 lists recent API errors and enumerates the error categories (network failures, HTTP 4xx/5xx, failed assertions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_errors and api_clear_errors by focusing on API errors rather than browser errors, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage context: it's for inspecting recent API errors, likely after running API tests or requests. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_errors or api_clear_errors, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical workflow placement.

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