Summarize network errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by starting with 'Read-only'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the clustering logic, the 'suggested order to investigate', and that group samples retain error/warning severity. This provides a clear picture of the tool's operation without contradicting the 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 composed of three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second outlines the return structure, and the third gives usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is comprehensive for a read-only network diagnostics summary tool. It explains the return structure, grouping options, the suggested investigation order, and explicitly distinguishes it from the raw-error alternative. Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail every return field; it provides sufficient context for correct selection and 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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does mention grouping by 'message, severity type, or parent container', which aligns with the group_by enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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's function: collecting and clustering errors/warnings across a network. It specifies grouping dimensions (message, severity type, parent container) and output components. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_td_node_errors by describing what this tool does versus that alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this for network-wide triage instead of reading each node's diagnostics individually, and use get_td_node_errors when the raw list for a single node or sub-tree is needed. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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