Get Error Trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose whether the tool aggregates data, how 'trends' are computed, what time bucketing is used, or what the response contains. The description contributes essentially no behavioral information.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrase adds no information beyond the title and does not earn its place as a meaningful explanation for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke the tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is too vague to be complete. It does not clarify what kind of error trends are returned, how the 'days' parameter shapes the result, or how this relates to the broader debugging workflow suggested by the sibling tools.

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?

The sole parameter 'days' is fully documented in the schema with a type, default, and Chinese description stating it is the statistics period. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics 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?

The description '获取错误趋势分析' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title ('Get Error Trends'). It names the resource at a high level but does not specify what the analysis contains, how it is computed, or what distinguishes it from siblings like get_stats or get_weekly_report.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stats or get_weekly_report. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess at the appropriate use case.

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