Get Error Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds behavioral context beyond that: data is aggregated, anonymized, and spans all users. This helps the agent understand the data scope without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 two crisp sentences with no fluff. The primary function is front-loaded ('Returns aggregated error patterns...') and the use case follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, but the limit parameter and the term 'patterns' give a reasonable hint. Overall, it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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% (both limit and errorType have clear descriptions with defaults and enums), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but the baseline 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 clearly states it returns 'aggregated error patterns from error_logs across all users (anonymized)' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the mention of error logs and learning struggles gives enough distinction to be clear.

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 mentions it is 'useful for understanding where learners actually struggle,' which implies a use case, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like cl_get_grammar_map or cl_get_adaptation_summary.

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