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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool is a mapping/lookup operation, which implies no mutation, but it does not disclose behavior on unknown errors, whether any network/service call is involved, or what the returned remediation looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It includes the essential input and outcome without redundancy.

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 is simple and the schema documents the parameters well, but the description does not clarify whether at least one parameter is required, whether both can be supplied simultaneously, or what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, some return/behavior guidance would improve completeness.

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 100%, with both 'error' and 'exit_code' already described. The description adds only that either an exit code or error message may be mapped, which is a mild semantic hint but not extra detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Map'), a specific input class ('@alter-ai/cli exit code or error message'), and an outcome ('remediation'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling documentation and operation tools.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent encounters a @alter-ai/cli exit code or error message. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the triggering condition is clear enough for routing.

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