lookup_error_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a full Markdown documentation page and lists the content types (fix recipe, causes, diagnostics). It also implies case-sensitivity from the schema. It lacks details on error handling if the code is not found or permissions needed, but is sufficiently transparent for typical use.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is missing behavior for invalid codes (e.g., error handling), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the parameter well (type, example, case-sensitivity). The description adds context about the return value but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves a FLOX error code to a full Markdown documentation page, including fix recipe, common causes, and diagnostics. It specifies the verb 'resolve' and resource 'error code', and distinguishes from siblings by its focused scope on error code lookup.

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 explicitly advises use whenever a FloxError is raised and warns against guessing fixes from the message alone. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., docs_search) or scenarios where the tool should not be used, which would strengthen guidance.

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