It's true that providing good actionable errors with useful context is hard and sometimes requires global knowledge. It still should be
attempted. I see that if a project doesn't
aim for that objective, then errors are the first thing to degrade and stay bad indefinitely. If even a modicum of effort is put to improve them, the project attracts users and contributors that appreciate them and try to improve them or at least hold the bar where it is.
So, yes, it's an uphil battle, but one that needs to be fought. I keep looking around at well established projects that don't even try, and as a user they are incredibly frustrating, because improving the status quo wouldn't require introducing global analysis, it might be as simple as adding an extra sentence with some internal state, a description with a few keywords to Google for, or a link to the docs.
I'm well aware of the effort needed to have great error messages. I'd be happy if the average error message was passable, instead of terrible.
Part of the problem (in open source) is that developers write tools for themselves first, so they are intimately knowledgeable about the internal state of the application, so they provide enough context for themselves. So little more is given unless enough people complain and the original developer agrees to change. In that ecosystem we constantly interact with tools written like that, so that's "the bar" we're used to. All our tools end up taking the approach of "The user did something stupid, I don't know", so that's what we do in our tools. And I completely reject that framing. I take the approach of "The user did something that didn't met the applications, sometimes implicit, preconditions." and take if from there. Maybe what they did was wrong due to a misunderstanding caused by bad docs, maybe the user did something wrong because we're missing a feature implied by the rest of the features, maybe the user hasn't done a necessary configuration step. All of those things can be checked for!
I can't think of any tool that isn't necessarily an error reporting tool. But few projects takes that into consideration and approaches it as "this is an error reporting tool first, and the actual thing it does is secondary". If the user cannot accomplish their task, it doesn't matter if it is the fastest tool in the West.
"Syntax error on line 1" is very different to "missing WHERE condition after AND on line 1 column 45".
A lot of the examples you have have alternative courses of action. Great, enumerate them in order of likelihood. Don't even claim to be right, just throw your users a bone. If you're right with any of them, you just saved them time and anguish. If you're wrong in all cases you mention, then you have a bug in your output. You can even get away with "these two things might be happening, but there might be other problems, can't help you more if so". "IO error", "couldn't to disk", "couldn't write to file", "couldn't write to file '/tmp/foo-bar'", "couldn't write to document metadata file '/tmp/foo-bar' because the file already exists and their permissions dont permit this user to write to it; you can change the path with '--metadata-path=/path/to/file" are all the same error, but I'd much rather get the last one, over the first one.