List TrackJS errors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: result ordering, the fields each error carries, and the size cost of includeStack with maxStackLines trimming. It does not cover auth or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and ordering, then parameter guidance, then the sibling-routing tip. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (message, URL, file:line:column, browser, user/session IDs, triage status, metadata, details link). Combined with the schema's pagination guidance for eight optional parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining what `query` actually matches (messages, URLs, metadata, user IDs) and warns to keep page size small when includeStack is on. Date range and application scoping are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List individual JavaScript error occurrences captured by TrackJS'), adds ordering ('newest first') and the underlying endpoint (GET /errors). It is clearly distinguished from the aggregating siblings like top_messages and errors_by_day.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for 'what is breaking most' questions, call top_messages first, then return here with `query` set to a message to see examples. That names both the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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