SRE: Error Rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it groups by service and minute, and focuses on ERROR logs. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover the tool's purpose and key usage patterns with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core definition.

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 a simple single-parameter tool, the description explains the grouping and usage scenarios adequately. However, without an output schema, it could be more complete by describing the return format (e.g., list of services with error counts, time series).

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 100% and the parameter description gives example values ('15m ago', '1h ago'). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides an SRE view of ERROR log events grouped by service and minute, and gives specific use cases like 'is the error rate climbing' and 'which service is burning error budget'. This differentiates it from sibling tools by specifying grouping and temporal focus.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (error rate climbing, budgeting, rollback decisions). However, it does not exclude alternatives or explain when not to use this tool compared to similar siblings like claude_errors or errors_by_service.

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