rybbit_get_error_timeseries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get error occurrence trends over time' with no detail on aggregation, time-bucket behavior, default ranges, or output shape. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or response semantics.

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 concise sentence with no filler, but it is also under-specified—'trends over time' conveys little more than the tool name. It is appropriately short but lacks the detail that would make it truly useful.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain return values, how date ranges or pastMinutes interact, what 'filters' are for, or how this differs from sibling tools. The complexity demands more context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the tool's general purpose, which aligns with a baseline 3.

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 resource ('error occurrence trends over time'), clearly indicating it returns time-series error data. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling timeseries tools like rybbit_get_overview_timeseries, but the error-specific naming and phrasing provide adequate differentiation.

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 such as rybbit_get_error_events or rybbit_get_error_names. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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