Failed Spans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the output grouping but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, cost, pagination, or how time-range caps are enforced, leaving major behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and usage condition are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an 11-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and one usage condition but does not explain return fields beyond grouping, how time parameters interact, or what the connection parameter affects. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 91%, so the schema already documents almost every parameter thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but provides no extra value.

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 states the resource ('error spans') and its grouping ('by service/span/pod'), which is specific and distinguishes it from a general trace tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with the close sibling dynatrace_slow_spans, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

It names one alternative (service_health) and two clear conditions: after service_health shows failures, or for latency vs error triage. It omits when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the slow-spans tool as a mutually exclusive alternative.

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