rybbit_get_error_events

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 states that the output includes stack traces and full context, which gives some idea of the return type, but it omits behavior around pagination, date-range filtering, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The transparency is adequate but minimal for a read-only tool.

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 of 10 words, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is an excellent example of concise writing.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It doesn't differentiate this tool from rybbit_get_events or other error-related tools, and it doesn't explain the full response structure beyond 'full context'. The schema covers parameters well, but the description leaves the agent without enough context for confident tool selection and invocation.

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?

All 10 parameters have individual schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reinforces that errorMessage is a filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is comprehensive.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'individual error occurrences'. The mention of 'full context including stack traces' distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_error_names (which likely returns only names) and rybbit_get_error_timeseries (which returns timeseries data).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another error-related tool (e.g., rybbit_get_error_names, rybbit_get_error_timeseries) would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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