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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the sandbox scope and enumerating the six exception kinds, which is behaviorally important for interpreting results. The undocumented 'limit' and lack of pagination/result-size behavior keep it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and entry-point cue front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the kind vocabulary and the sandbox scope. Only the 'limit' parameter's semantics are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It compensates well for 'kind' by listing all six allowed values (the schema declares no enum), but leaves 'limit' completely unexplained, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Open exceptions') with scope ('in your sandbox') and a modifier ('optionally filtered by kind'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_resolved_examples and get_exception, which fetch a different state or a single item.

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?

'Start here.' explicitly signals this is the entry-point tool for the exception workflow, which is meaningful routing guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to a follow-up tool (e.g. resolve_exception), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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