neuron_get_errors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether errors are cleared, how 'recent' is defined, whether results are scoped to a tab/platform, or what the response structure looks like. This leaves meaningful behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the agent's only source of behavioral and return-value context. It omits parameter semantics (tabId, platform), scoping rules, and any indication of output shape, making it incomplete for reliable invocation. A few added sentences could close these gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'limit' has a description). The description itself adds no parameter meaning; 'tabId' and 'platform' remain unexplained in both the description and schema. The description's mention of 'HTTP requests' and 'console errors' does not map these parameters to behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent failed HTTP requests (4xx/5xx) and console errors'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like neuron_get_requests (all requests) and neuron_get_logs (logs). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided. The description implies it is for error inspection but does not state when to prefer it over neuron_get_requests, neuron_get_logs, or neuron_session_diagnostics. The agent must infer usage from the resource name.

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