get_recent_errors

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'recent' without defining the time window or clarifying that this is a read-only operation. It does not mention return format, pagination, or how the parameters affect results. The term 'recent' is vague and the description lacks critical behavioral details.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the simple function it describes.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes an error, how the parameters interact, or what the response will look like. The agent is left with insufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (instance_name, minutes, maximum_results). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no additional meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone; it must guess or have prior knowledge.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('recent CloudWatch application and operating-system errors'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_instance_health or get_service_status, which focus on different data (health, status). There is no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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 the siblings. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that it is for errors, with no direction on how it differs from get_service_journal or get_instance_metrics.

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