get_frontend_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (grouped by signature with counts, first/last seen, routes), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It provides some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key context (probe RUM) and immediately states the output content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description mentions output structure but does not explain whether namespace is required (despite the schema hinting it may be), how to discover it (though list_namespaces is mentioned in the schema), or any limits or pagination. For a simple query tool, this is minimal but leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke 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 67% (service and namespace described, route not). The tool description does not clarify the 'route' parameter, which appears in the output but not as an input explanation. Since coverage is moderate and the description adds no extra meaning for the undocumented parameter, it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 it retrieves JavaScript errors from RUM, grouped by signature, with counts, first/last seen, and routes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from sibling tools like get_web_vitals (performance) and get_page_views (page views).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. The only hint is the 'probe RUM' prefix, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and other frontend analytics tools.

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