get_app_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Get error metrics.' It does not explain what is included in the metrics, whether any side effects occur, or what kind of response the agent should expect. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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 clear sentence with no superfluous content. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 tool is simple, has fully documented parameters, and lacks an output schema. However, the description omits any detail about the nature of the error metrics, time window semantics beyond the schema default, and result shape, leaving the agent to infer some behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both app_name and hours. The description adds only a loose mapping to 'specific application' and no additional detail about how the parameters interact or what unit the metrics are in.

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 states a specific action ('get'), a resource ('application'), and the data type ('error metrics'). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings like get_app_performance or get_alert_violations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_app_performance, get_alert_violations, or query_nrql. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate use.

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