analyze_errs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool performs a read-only analysis, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving expected behavior unclear.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which borders on under-specification. While concise, it omits critical details that would justify its brevity, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 the simple input schema and existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'analyze' entails, what the output contains, or how to interpret results. Prerequisites and error handling are missing.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'trace errors' but does not explain the 'trace_id' parameter's format, constraints, or how it relates to the returned data. The single parameter lacks semantic enrichment.

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: analyzing trace errors, including error spans, exceptions, and failure context. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_perf' and 'deep_analyze'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deep_analyze' or 'search_genai_traces'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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