get_error_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify what constitutes a 'failed' request (e.g., status ranges as 4xx/5xx), how results are returned (pagination, list format), or any side effects. The schema documents parameters but not the operational behavior.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent failed HTTP requests'), with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 that this is a straightforward read tool with optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks clarification of what 'failed' means and the return format, and it does not help differentiate among many sibling tools. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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%, with all three parameters (top, hours, statusRange) documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly identified resource ('recent failed HTTP requests'), making its purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_requests or get_error_logs by focusing specifically on failed HTTP requests, even though 'failed' could be more explicit (e.g., status >=400).

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 phrase 'for troubleshooting' implies a use case but is broad and does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. No mention is made of when to prefer this tool over get_recent_requests or get_error_logs, leaving usage guidance merely implied.

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