rybbit_get_error_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the aggregate nature (unique messages, counts). However, it does not mention pagination behavior, filter application, or any operational details that might affect usage.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of any wasted words, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description focuses on the core return value but omits usage context and alternative selection criteria. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not provide enough context for an agent to fully assess when this tool is the best choice compared to error_events and error_timeseries.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not enhancing.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and a detailed resource: 'unique error messages with occurrence and session counts'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rybbit_get_error_events and rybbit_get_error_timeseries by emphasizing the aggregated, unique-message nature of the result.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contrasting sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction for selection among error-related tools.

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