get_recent_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and the description discloses what the response contains (counts, first/last seen, affected users), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about authentication (Sentry token/project env fallback), rate limits, or whether results are paginated or truncated by the limit parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, source, and return payload with no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple read tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of stating scope and return content. The main omission is guidance on how it relates to the sibling detail/analysis tools, which the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, query, project, timeframe) are already documented in the schema with defaults and examples. The description adds no query syntax, timeframe format, or project-scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('recent production errors'), and source system ('Sentry'), and even enumerates the payload (frequency counts, timestamps, affected users). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_error_details or find_regression, leaving the agent to infer the 'list vs. detail' split.

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?

Usage is implied ('recent errors for a project or service') and the 'recent' framing hints at the recency-scoped use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings. The agent must infer that this is the list-level entry point rather than the detail drill-down.

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