fmod_console_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool logs an error and is an alias. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output destination, synchronous execution, side effects, or error handling, which are expected for a logging function.

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 concise at three short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently states the action and alias. However, structure could be improved with parameter details or usage hints.

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 is simple with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values (none expected), parameter semantics, and potential side effects. The minimal context leaves an agent uncertain about how to construct a complete call.

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 0% description coverage and the parameter 'msg' has an empty description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'msg' should contain. For a simple tool, this is a significant gap.

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 logs an error, specifying the verb 'Logs' and resource 'error'. It also identifies it as an alias for studio.system.error. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling console tools like fmod_console_log or fmod_console_warn, relying on the tool name for distinction.

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 for error logging via the tool name and the phrase 'Logs an error'. It also notes it is an alias. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions.

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