recent_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the output includes, why the volume metric is included, and that actual error lines are returned. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's read-only informational behavior, though it does not mention limits or grouping 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 dense sentence that front-loads the core output and adds an important interpretability caveat. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the time window concept, and why volume is included. Minor gaps remain around default window, maximum lookback, and exact formatting of returned lines, but these do not undermine basic usability.

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 schema has one optional `minutes` integer with 0% description coverage. The description references 'last N minutes,' which clearly corresponds to the `minutes` parameter, but it never explicitly names the parameter, a default value, or behavior when omitted. It provides partial compensation but leaves the optionality ambiguous.

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 identifies what the tool returns: top ERROR/FATAL patterns over a recent window, the total volume for interpretability, and actual recent error lines. It differentiates itself from siblings like top_patterns and recent_events by focusing specifically on errors/fatals and including raw lines plus volume.

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 implies this tool is for investigating recent error/fatal patterns and understanding whether 'no errors' is meaningful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as top_patterns, recent_events, or incident_analysis, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions.

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