get_error_patterns

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'analyzes your error history' and what categories it covers, but discloses nothing about data sources, time windows, rate limits, or how much history is scanned, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the body is well organized into a short prose block plus a 'Returns' list. The Returns section partly duplicates what the output schema already declares, which is a minor redundancy but not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the categories of error it addresses. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. There are no inputs whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show common QuickSight errors and their known fixes') and adds domain specificity by naming SPICE refresh, permission, and throttling failures. It is clearly about error-pattern analysis, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostic siblings like verify_analysis_health or get_learning_insights.

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 final sentence gives an unambiguous trigger: 'Call this when something goes wrong to see if it is a known issue with a known fix.' It states clear usage context but offers no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools for diagnosis, keeping it short of a 5.

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