get_error_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the age parameter is 'capped by the configured maximum' but doesn't explain behavior on cap exceedance (e.g., silent cap or error). Missing details on side effects, authentication, or performance.

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 mostly concise but includes a mention of 'ctx' argument not present in the input schema, causing confusion. The Args/Returns structure is clear, but the extra context detracts from conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on exact return field names, error handling, and edge cases (e.g., empty traces). The output schema might compensate, but it is not shown.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'age'. The description adds 'capped by the configured maximum' which provides extra context, but no further semantic value 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?

The description clearly states 'Get number of traces with exceptions in last N minutes,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_exceptions or get_exception_details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_exceptions or get_exception_details. The description implies usage for aggregated error counts but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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