summarize_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool does (compresses errors, distinguishes first occurrences vs cascades, provides fault type, stack, requestId) but does not mention limitations, side effects, or edge cases. The disclosure is substantial and goes beyond mere verb repetition.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with a colon introducing a list of outputs. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, containing no filler words. Slight length is justified by the rich content.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a good overview of outputs and distinguishes itself from log browsing, but lacks parameter details and does not specify return structure, limits, or error handling. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but incomplete for precise invocation.

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 only 25% (only topN and range have descriptions). The description does not explain the parameters beyond implying a time window, nor does it detail labels, keyword, project, etc. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: it aggregates and merges errors into patterns, distinguishes root causes from cascading noise, and provides fault classification, stack frames, and high-frequency requestIds. It also contrasts with direct error log browsing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_logs.

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 implies usage context by stating it is more efficient than flipping through error logs, suggesting it should be used when a summarized error analysis is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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