Find Errors

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety burden is met. The description adds that results include detailed error content and LLM-specific information, but it does not describe how errors are selected, whether the output is sorted, or how the time-range and service filters interact with error detection.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and its second sentence provides useful detail. It avoids fluff, though it could have used one sentence to clarify its relationship with similar sibling tools.

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 a full output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the core calling context is covered. However, the description is incomplete in guiding an agent through the large sibling set, especially when search_traces and error-specific investigation tools exist.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description and default value. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond indicating that the returned traces contain error details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 finds traces with errors and lists what is included (error messages, stack traces, LLM-specific information). This gives it a distinct purpose relative to the generic search_traces sibling, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison.

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 given about when to use this tool versus search_traces, investigate_error_spike, or get_trace. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and brief description.

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