error_correlate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'automatically' correlates and finds root causes, but does not explain how correlation works, whether it modifies data, requires prior data, or what output format to expect. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs complex analysis.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action 'Automatically correlate errors', and contains no extraneous words. It is concise and clearly structured.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return value or side effects. 'Find root causes' is vague and does not clarify the output format. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tabId, timeWindow, minSeverity) with descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantics beyond naming the correlation task, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: 'Automatically correlate errors between console and network, find root causes.' It uses a specific verb ('correlate') and resource ('errors between console and network'), and the goal of root cause analysis distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_search or network_analyze which focus on individual sources.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to connect errors across console and network logs to identify root causes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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