get_error_patterns

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions grouping by message and identifying common patterns, which is a basic behavioral overview. Missing details like read-only hint, permission requirements, or performance implications.

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 redundancy. Each sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains the grouping logic and use case. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 output schema exists to describe return values, description adequately covers purpose and usage context. Missing explicit mention of grouping criterion (message) but it's implied. Siblings provide enough differentiation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that patterns are grouped by message and systemic issues are targeted, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Detect' and resource 'recurring error patterns' with method 'aggregating similar error messages'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_errors' (find specific errors) and 'analyze_error_trend' (trend analysis) by focusing on pattern detection.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'useful for separating systemic issues from one-off errors'. This provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or compare directly with alternatives.

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