get_error_solutions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it uses semantic search and returns similar errors/solutions, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior when no matches found. The presence of an output schema mitigates slightly, but the description itself is sparse.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the core functionality and method. Minor missing details about pagination or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'using semantic search' for the error_message parameter, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The top_k parameter is not elaborated on.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find', the resource 'similar errors and their solutions', and the method 'using semantic search'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_error_details' and 'get_recent_errors'.

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 needing to find similar errors/solutions by error message, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to alternative error tools. Given many sibling tools, guidance would be helpful.

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