SRE: Top Error Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is a 'summary' and groups by service, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe result format, limit, or ordering, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by three example query forms. No redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate—it explains the output ('top repeated errors by service') and typical use cases. It could optionally mention result ordering or limits, but this is not essential given low complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'since' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's description, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 summary of the most repeated error messages by service', with explicit usage examples like 'what error is dominating' and 'top error signatures'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'errors_by_service' which may list all errors without focusing on frequency.

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 gives clear use cases ('Use for...') with three example queries, helping an agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like 'errors_by_service' or 'soc_repeated_errors'.

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