Troubleshoot an Avalanche error

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds that the tool returns diagnosis and documentation references. It does not disclose any additional behaviors such as rate limits, source dependencies, or depth of analysis, but given the annotations already cover safety, a middle score is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and specifies input categories. No wasted words; every clause adds relevant value.

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 a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input types and expected return (causes, fixes, documentation). It does not mention potential limitations (e.g., unsupported error types) but is complete for typical use, especially with the schema filling in parameter constraints.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'context' parameter has a descriptive schema but 'error_text' does not. The tool description adds meaning to 'error_text' by clarifying it is an error message or symptom with categories, which helps the agent. However, it does not elaborate on how 'context' affects the analysis beyond the schema's example, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 a specific verb and resource: given an error message or symptom (RPC error, CLI output, revert reason, ICM delivery issue), return likely causes, fixes, and matching documentation. It distinguishes itself from generic doc-search siblings by focusing on troubleshooting an error, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when you have an error message or symptom—and what it will return. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like avax_search_docs for general documentation lookup, leaving that inference to the agent.

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