Runheed

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful return-content context by naming the fields included, such as message, status, counts, timestamps, environment, agent context, stack frames, and breadcrumbs. It does not disclose failure behavior or permissions, but with annotations present, this is still solid.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's scope and then enumerates the returned fields. It contains no repetitive or low-value text.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description gives enough detail about the returned error group, especially since there is no output schema. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the relationship to get_error_context, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

There is only one parameter, errorId, and the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any format, source, or retrieval guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, this is the expected baseline.

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 and resource: it returns one error group. It also lists the key fields included. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_error_context or search_errors, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. Retrieving details by error ID is only implied by the tool name and required parameter.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is added context, and it delivers by enumerating exactly which data categories are retrieved — the closest thing to output disclosure since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting edge cases (missing breadcrumbs, unknown errorId behavior), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the outcome ("everything recorded around an error") and then itemizes the payload. No filler; the only near-redundant item is the vague trailing "extra data".

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return, and it does so at category level, which is sufficient for a single-parameter read tool. Missing only minor operational details: what happens when the errorId is unknown or when fields are absent.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ("The error ID to get context for"). The description adds nothing about id format or source (where to obtain a valid errorId, e.g. from search results), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ("Returns") plus a precisely enumerated payload: breadcrumbs, platform, runtime, OS, environment, release, user, agent session, extra data. That enumeration implicitly separates it from runheed_get_error (the error record) and runheed_search_errors, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "context" — an agent can infer this is the detail-expansion call after runheed_get_error or runheed_search_errors, but the description never says so. There are no when-not conditions, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling that returns the error itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: the 0-100 score scale, the 24-hour measurement window, and the specific metrics bundled into the response, which matters because no output schema exists to otherwise convey them.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and returned contents are packed in without repetition.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the return payload. It falls short only on how the score is derived and whether results are cached or time-sensitive beyond the 24-hour error window.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Project ID (uses default if not specified)'. The description adds only slight meaning by clarifying that omitting the ID aggregates across the whole workspace, which sharpens the schema's vague 'default' wording but does not add format or syntax detail.

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 ('Returns') plus a concrete resource ('0 to 100 health score') and scope ('a project or the whole workspace'), and enumerates the payload (errors in last 24h, unresolved count, error rate, issues, recommendations). It is clearly an aggregate overview tool rather than any of the sibling error-lookup/mutation tools, though it never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is the dashboard-style overview call — but the description never states when to prefer it over runheed_get_recent, runheed_get_trends, or runheed_search_errors, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond that — the newest-first ordering and the exact field set returned — but says nothing about pagination, default behavior, or what an empty result means, so it is additive without being rich.

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 dense sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place almost entirely; the field enumeration is the only part that could be trimmed, though it usefully compensates for the absent output schema.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the ordering and the shape of each returned record. Only the interaction between `limit` and ordering, and the empty-result case, are left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 both `limit` (default 10, max 50) and `projectId` fully documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention either parameter's effect on ordering or filtering, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns error groups ordered newest first, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from runheed_get_error (single error) and runheed_search_errors (query-driven), but it does not name those siblings explicitly, leaving the differentiation for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "recent" and the newest-first ordering suggest a quick triage listing rather than a filtered search, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over runheed_search_errors or runheed_get_trends, and no mention that both parameters are optional.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is lighter and it delivers: it discloses the aggregation contents (totals, new, resolved, most frequent errors, hourly rate) that an agent wouldn't otherwise know since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, but for a read-only stats call that is a modest gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the enumeration of returned metrics. Zero filler.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back and over which periods. Missing only a note on default behavior (period defaults to 24h) and whether results are scoped to a project by default.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the period enum values already in the schema and adds no semantics for projectId or for how period interacts with the returned hourly bucket granularity.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Returns error statistics') and enumerates the contents: totals, new/resolved counts, top errors and hourly rate across three periods. That clearly separates it from list-style siblings like runheed_get_recent or runheed_search_errors, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'trends' over 24h/7d/30d suggests an aggregate/analytics call rather than a raw error fetch. There is no statement of when to prefer this over runheed_get_recent or runheed_get_project_health, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description has a lower bar. It still adds real value by explaining the effect (alert suppression on new occurrences) and the response ('Returns a confirmation'), though it omits reversibility/permission context.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core effect (stop alerting) is front-loaded immediately after the action. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 2-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, purpose, effect, and response shape. A brief note on reversibility or required permissions would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both errorId and reason are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level guidance such as when a reason is expected or what format an error ID takes, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Marks an error group ignored') and the resulting behavior ('new occurrences stop alerting'). It is clearly distinct from runheed_resolve_error and runheed_unignore_error by name semantics, but does not explicitly contrast itself with 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?

'for known or expected errors' gives a clear condition that selects this tool over triaging or resolving. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use runheed_resolve_error when the error is fixed, runheed_unignore_error to reverse), so no explicit exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower and the description clears it by disclosing the non-obvious auto-reopen lifecycle and that a confirmation is returned. It doesn't cover auth requirements or what identity the resolution is attributed to, keeping it out of the top band.

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 short sentences, the action stated first, lifecycle caveat second, return value last — no filler. Slightly more compact phrasing could merge the lifecycle and return clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, side effect on recurrence, and the return shape ('a confirmation'). Nothing essential is missing, though permission/attribution context would have made it airtight.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description adds only the illustrative 'such as the fixing commit' for comment and says nothing extra about errorId. That is a marginal enrichment over the annotated schema, consistent with the baseline 3.

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?

A specific verb plus resource — 'Marks an error group resolved' — with the optional note scoped in. It is distinguishable from siblings like ignore_error/unignore_error by the 'resolved' outcome, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 sentence 'The group reopens on its own if the error happens again' implicitly guides selection versus ignore_error (permanent suppression), but the description never states that tradeoff explicitly or says when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by disclosing the returned fields (status, type, message, event count, last-seen, ID), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/total-count behavior and result 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the search scope and filter dimensions come first, followed immediately by the return shape. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value picture and the filtering model. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, whether results are truncated by limit).

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%, so all four parameters including the status enum and limit bounds are already documented structurally. The description only restates the filter axes and adds no new semantics such as whether query matches substrings or how limit interacts with the result set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches the workspace's error groups') plus the filterable dimensions, so it is clearly distinct from the singular get_error sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the named filters (text, status, project), telling an agent roughly when this fits, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer runheed_get_recent or runheed_get_error instead, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false; the description adds real value beyond them by naming the target state (unresolved), the alerting consequence, and that a confirmation is returned. It omits whether the error must currently be ignored and what happens if it is not, which is a meaningful precondition for a state-transition tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the state change and followed by the effect and return note. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state change, the alerting effect, and the return shape. The only gap is the precondition failure behavior, which an agent would need to handle errors 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 coverage is 100% with a single required errorId already documented as "The error ID to unignore". The description's phrase "an ignored error group" hints that the ID must reference a currently-ignored error, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with an explicit state transition ("Moves an ignored error group back to unresolved"), which implicitly separates it from ignore_error and resolve_error. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 clause "so new occurrences alert again" gives clear context for when to use it — undoing a prior ignore. There is no explicit when-not condition or named alternative (e.g., resolve_error for marking permanently resolved), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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