list_error_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: hours are 'snapped to the nearest supported period', results are ordered by frequency, and environment selection is configurable.

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 a one-sentence purpose followed by a tight, well-organized argument list. Every sentence adds meaning without repetition or filler.

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 all parameters, defaults, ordering, and environment behavior, which is sufficient for calling the tool correctly. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema makes a brief note about counts and ordering a reasonable partial response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: lookback window and snapping behavior, service label filtering, maximum result limit, and environment selection with an example. No parameter is left underdocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific action, 'List grouped application errors from Error Reporting with counts', which clearly identifies the resource and output. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_recent_errors or 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 explains parameters and defaults but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recent_errors or query_logs. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions that would help an agent select among the siblings.

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