get_app_errors

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal that output includes occurrence counts and error details. However, it doesn't explain how 'recent' is bounded, whether results are aggregated per endpoint, or any call-time defaults beyond those in the schema, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.

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, compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists the key data fields. Every phrase is useful, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-focused tool with two optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its output. A minor gap is the lack of explanation about the format of 'occurrence counts' or any grouping behavior, but this doesn't block invocation.

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 the app enum and limit parameter are already well documented. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters, but the schema already fully explains them, so no compensation is needed.

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 clear action ('get') and resource ('recent application errors') and enumerates the returned fields ('error messages, endpoints, status codes, and occurrence counts'). This distinguishes it well from siblings like get_app_status or get_app_metrics, which focus on health and metrics rather than error details.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_app_status, get_app_metrics, or get_service_health. There is no mention of when not to use it or what to do if errors span multiple apps, so the agent is left to infer the tool's role from its name.

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