get_error_groups

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The lack of such details is a minor 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?

The description is short and directly gets to the point, with no redundant sentences. However, the misleading 'all' statement reduces precision.

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 covers return content but omits important context: it does not address pagination or how the limit parameter affects the result set, nor does it describe handling of empty results or error conditions. Given no output schema, more detail was needed.

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 description claims 'List all distinct error groups' while the input schema includes an optional `limit` parameter defaulting to 20. This contradicts the 'all' claim, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain the parameter's effect.

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 the action (list), resource (error groups), sorting (by frequency), and output content (exception type, occurrence count, links). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like error_detail which likely focuses on a single group.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as error_detail for details on a specific group or other sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion cases.

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