get_network_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get network error logs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this retrieves real-time data, historical logs, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Get network error logs') that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 complexity (a tool for retrieving logs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'network error logs' entail, how they're formatted, or any behavioral aspects like data freshness or scope. For a tool in a set with many logging siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Get network error logs' clearly states the action (get) and resource (network error logs), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_console_errors' or 'get_network_logs', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool from those alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_console_errors' and 'get_network_logs' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for errors only, real-time vs. historical logs, or other contextual factors that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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