Get Error Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the output contents (ranked errors, stack traces, sample transaction IDs, per-service rates) and the time-range analysis behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It concisely conveys what the tool does and what it returns without unnecessary filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so well (error types, messages, stack traces, sample transaction IDs, per-service rates). It does not describe limitations or aggregation specifics, but given the tool's scope and strong annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description references the time range (start_time/end_time) but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like obj_hash and obj_type. The schema descriptions are sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Analyze errors within a time range' and details what it returns (ranked error types, stack traces, sample transaction IDs, per-service error rates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_overview or diagnose_performance by focusing specifically on error analysis with drill-down data.

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 context is implied (use for error analysis within a time range), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling list includes several diagnostic tools, so explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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