find_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include detailed error messages, stack traces, and LLM-specific error information, which adds some transparency about output content. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or how pagination/limits behave beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and structured with Args/Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized. The Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it does not detract much from overall conciseness.

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 tool's low complexity, four parameters, and an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only safety, which is more important because no annotations are present.

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 must compensate; it does so for all four parameters. It gives time format (ISO 8601), explains service_name as a filter, and defines limit as the maximum number of error traces with a default of 100. It could add more detail (e.g., timezone, inclusive/exclusive bounds), but it substantially covers the parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find traces with errors.' This distinguishes it from generic trace searching siblings like search_traces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_traces or get_trace, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_traces or get_trace. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions for selection. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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