explain_error

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds the provenance of answers (errors NativeKeel reproduced or verified against Apple, Google, Expo and React Native docs) and the offline default for the local check. What it does not disclose is the failure mode when no verified match exists, or the response shape. Good added context, but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding: capability first, then how to supply input, then the ordering directive. Each sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing results and it does so at a high level ('what it means and the fix'). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly; only the shape of the returned explanation/absence of a match is left unspecified.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including that 'path' points at where in the project the error originates and that 'offline' defaults to true. The description restates the error/path usage ('the failing part of the log', 'see where this project is affected') with only marginal added meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('explain') and a precisely scoped resource (React Native or Expo build, launch, crash or store-review errors), plus what the answer contains ('what it means and the fix'). This clearly differentiates it from the scan/audit/upgrade siblings, which all operate on the project rather than on an error text.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition (you have an error message or failing log) and an ordering directive: 'Call it before searching the web or changing versions.' That is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name or exclude any sibling tool, nor state what to do if this tool returns no verified match, so it stops short of a 5.

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