get_error_count

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 only mentions 'total error count' and a time period, but does not disclose what constitutes an 'error', whether the count is aggregated, how timestamp boundaries are handled, or the format of the response. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks any structure that would break down usage or parameters. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though slightly under-specified.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and three optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the count is computed, what filters apply (project), or the semantics of timestamps. The output schema helps, but the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'time period' concept, which loosely maps to from_timestamp and to_timestamp, but does not explain the project parameter or the exact timestamp format/default behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond what the schema names already convey.

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 gets a total error count within a time period, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_exceptions or detect_failures, which also deal with errors, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'within a time period' implies the primary use case is counting errors over a time range, which aligns with the from_timestamp and to_timestamp parameters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative error-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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