get_error_traces

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 state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. While it hints at output content (stack traces, messages), it omits essential behavioral context expected for a tool without annotations.

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 sentence, instantly understandably, with the core action and outcome front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description gives a basic sense of what the tool does, but given the presence of siblings like nrql_query and nrql_batch_query, it would benefit from a note on when to use this instead. It also lacks behavioral transparency since there are no annotations. The output schema exists, so return format is not a gap, but usage guidance and behavior are missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-related meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3. The schema already documents limit, since, and app_name effectively.

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 ('get'), a precise resource ('recent error traces'), and scope ('for an application'). It clearly distinguishes from generic siblings like nrql_query or search_entities by focusing on error traces. The mention of 'stack traces and messages' adds specificity.

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 implies usage when error traces are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like nrql_query (which could also fetch error traces via NRQL). No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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