get_js_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 that the tool returns a structured JSON breakdown by Browser and OS, but omits key behavioral traits: whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication (beyond optional token), potential rate limits, or data freshness constraints. The num_of_days constraint (1-3) is hinted at but not fully explained.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return format. It is appropriately sized for a 3-param tool with no annotations, though it could be slightly tighter by integrating the parameter details into prose rather than a list.

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?

Given no annotations, an output schema exists, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure adequately. It lacks guidance on error handling or rate limits, but for a simple analysis tool, it provides enough to invoke correctly. The output schema (present) handles return value details, so the description needn't over-explain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines project_id as the Microsoft Clarity Project ID, num_of_days as lookback window with allowed values (1,2,3) and default 3, and token as optional API token. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify token behavior (e.g., required if not set elsewhere).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze JavaScript errors and unhandled exceptions across browsers and operating systems.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_ux_insights or get_frustration_breakdown by naming the exact data domain (JS errors/exceptions).

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 for analyzing JS errors, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_frustration_breakdown). It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter constraints.

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