GetErrors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important behavioral details: Vite errors can be retrieved even without a connected runtime, and console.error entries are are not handled by this tool. It does not specify the exact return shape or side effects, but for a read-style 'Get' tool the description adds meaningful transparency beyond a bare summary.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and outcome, the second gives a specific call-first scenario, and the third routes to a sibling tool for a different message type. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 lacking an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level return contract by naming both error kinds and clarifying the verbose stack-trace option through the parameter schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure or timeout behavior, but the coverage is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with all three parameters (verbose, notebook, timeout_ms) already documented meaningfully in the schema. The tool description adds contextual routing for console errors but not new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get errors from the notebook'. It clearly enumerates the two error categories returned (Vite build/parse errors and Observable runtime errors) and gives a concrete example (syntax errors that prevent the page from loading), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: if the page fails to load due to a syntax error, call this tool first, and it will surface the Vite error even without a connected runtime. It also explicitly routes console.error messages to a sibling tool, GetConsoleMessages with channel='error', which clearly distinguishes when not to use this tool.

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