List Exceptions

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no default time window behind "recent", no default limit or sort order, no note on the range cap that allowLongRange overrides, and no pagination behavior. For a read tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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, front-loaded with the return content, no filler. The problem is the opposite of verbosity: for a 35-parameter tool the text is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

With 35 parameters, 0 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this definition needed to explain defaults, time bounds, and filtering semantics. Two sentences stating the resource and a vague filter hint leave an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 only 57% across 35 parameters, and the description adds nothing beyond "log filters and date bounds". The many undocumented parameters (sort, limit, regex, around/offset/window, sample, status, traceId, excludeLevels, excludePatterns, maxContentChars) get no explanation in either place, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 specifies the resource and scope: recent ERROR/exception log lines, which is clear enough that an agent knows what it gets back. However, it offers no differentiation from overlapping log siblings such as dynatrace_search_logs, dynatrace_pod_logs, or dynatrace_log_summary, so an agent must decide alone which log tool to reach for.

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?

"Use log filters and date bounds" is a parameter hint, not usage guidance: it never states when this tool is preferable to search_logs with a loglevel filter, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. There is no when/when-not framing and no alternative named.

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