Summarize error window

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool focuses on deterministic error signals and avoids root-cause analysis. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the nature of the output and limitations, providing good behavioral insight.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, this description is too sparse. It lacks details about input semantics, expected output format (e.g., list, count), and edge cases. The tool's complexity demands more contextual information for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely mentions a 'project or deployment time window', which touches on project/deployment and time parameters, but leaves the meaning of fields like 'since' vs 'from/to' and 'limit' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate these parameters.

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 summarizes deterministic error signals within a project or deployment time window, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without claiming root cause' distinguishes it from diagnostic tools like diagnose_service or analyze_trace_logs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a summary of deterministic error signals is needed over a time window. It also sets a boundary by explicitly excluding root-cause claims, which hints at when not to rely on it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use instead' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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