explain_exception

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose an important behavioral nuance: E14 unexplained means no strategy matched, and the tool intentionally leaves classification open rather than guessing. It also indicates the tool surfaces evidence, records, and allowed actions. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions, leaving those to inference from the tool's name and context.

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 short and front-loads the core definition in the first sentence. The E14 explanation adds useful intent context about why unexplained exceptions are left open, so it earns its place rather than being pure padding. While the poetic closing line is stylistically extra, it does reinforce a key behavioral trait without bloating the description.

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 output schema covers the return structure, and the behavioral note addresses the main edge case, but the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance for choosing between siblings. It relies heavily on domain assumptions about runs, exceptions, and E14 without explaining the inputs. An agent can call the tool only if it already understands the domain and how run_id and exception_id relate.

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%, and the description never mentions run_id or exception_id. It does not explain what these identifiers refer to, how they relate, or what values are expected. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which itself has no descriptions.

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 'One exception with its evidence, its records and what it is allowed to do,' which clearly conveys that the tool returns a single exception enriched with supporting material and permitted actions. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_proof and fetch_records, which focus on narrower pieces of evidence. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Explains,' so the exact operation is implied rather than directly stated.

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 provides domain context about E14 unexplained but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_proof, fetch_records, or get_worklist. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are offered. The only implied use case is 'need details of one exception,' which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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