errors.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination behavior with the 'limit' parameter, default sorts, or whether filtering with empty strings means 'no filter'. It also does not outline response structure, though an output schema exists.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds filtering details concisely. It could be slightly improved by including 'limit' parameter, but remains clean.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is a minimal viable baseline. It covers the primary action and two filters but does not address default behavior, output format, or edge cases. An output schema exists so return structure is partly handled, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 but only mentions two parameters (service, error_type) while omitting 'limit'. It does not explain semantics like the effect of default values or how empty strings affect filtering.

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 it 'Lists ingested errors', providing a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional filtering by 'service' or 'error_type', which distinguishes it from other error-related tools like errors.get_investigation and errors.ingest.

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 use for listing with filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like system.jobs.list or memory.list_raw_events. It lacks when-not or context about prerequisites.

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