get_exception_info

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

The description discloses that the tool returns decompiled code conditionally (if exception handling found). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention what happens if no exception handling exists (e.g., empty result or error), auth needs, or side effects, but the conditional behavior is clearly stated for a read-only analysis tool.

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 two short, well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the first states the check, the second specifies the return condition. No wasted words, though could be more compact.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema (which may explain return format), the description provides the conditional purpose and return type. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., invalid identifier, no exception handling) and doesn't explain what 'decompiled code' means in context. It's functional but not comprehensive for a reverse engineering tool.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (`identifier`) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description adds no extra context for `identifier` (e.g., whether it's a function name, address, or ID). With zero schema coverage and only one parameter, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning beyond the property name.

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 uses specific verbs (check, returns) and clearly states the resource (function exception handling) and the condition (if found). It distinguishes from siblings like `get_function_info` and `disassemble_function` by focusing on exception handling context, not general info or assembly.

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 when analyzing error handling in a function, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `decompile_function` or `get_function_info`. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., function must exist) or when not to use it.

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