get_error_context

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what it retrieves. It does not disclose side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or that it is read-only, which is acceptable for a retrieval tool but lacks explicit behavioral constraints.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded purpose and clear explanation of what is retrieved. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It could mention read-only nature or prerequisite that trace_id exists, but overall it is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that trace_id is used to fetch error and related logs, aligning with include_related. However, it doesn't explicitly describe include_related beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves full context for an error using a trace ID, specifying it gets the error and related logs. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_errors or analyze_error_trend, which serve different purposes.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when you have a trace ID and need debugging context) but does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling names imply alternatives.

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