explain_daqmx_error

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond those. It does so by stating 'preserving the supplied numeric code and original message,' which signals that the tool does not modify or rewrite the user's inputs. This adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key behavior. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema present (so return values need not be described). The description covers the core functionality and behavioral nuance. No additional context—such as required permissions or edge cases—is necessary for the agent to use it effectively alongside the given schema and annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by labeling the parameters as 'numeric code' and 'original message,' mapping directly to the schema properties 'code' and 'message.' This adds clarity about the nature of each parameter, though it stops short of explaining optionality or format. The description provides enough semantic grounding given the simple parameter set.

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 tool's function: 'Explain a DAQmx error while preserving the supplied numeric code and original message.' It uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('DAQmx error'), and the preservation clause adds a distinguishing detail. The sibling tools are all device I/O operations, so this error-explanation tool is clearly differentiated.

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 context: this tool is for explaining DAQmx errors, not for interacting with devices. It does not explicitly mention when to use it or provide alternatives, but the context and sibling names make the intended use clear. There are no exclusions or warnings, but the absence of alternatives is acceptable given the straightforward niche.

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