get_app_error_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether the call is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what 'recent' means in terms of time scope even though from_ and to are required parameters.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a compact Args block. Some phrasing is redundant, such as 'filter errors' being repeated for both optional parameters, but overall it is efficient.

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 description is incomplete for a five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, the description fails to document the required from_ and to parameters and supplies no safety or pagination context, so the agent lacks information needed to call the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It documents app_id, endpoint_id, and error_group_id, but it omits the required from_ and to parameters entirely, leaving the agent without any explanation of the mandatory time-range arguments.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent error_groups for an app'. It distinguishes the optional endpoint/error-group filtering scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like get_app_anomaly_events or get_app_insights.

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 explains that endpoint_id and error_group_id are optional and that omitting endpoint_id fetches all errors for the app. That implies when to use the filters, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or on prerequisites such as required permissions.

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