lookup_error_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (full Markdown documentation page) and content areas (fix recipe, common causes, diagnostics). It doesn't mention error behavior for invalid codes, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable and adds meaningful context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by a usage directive. Every phrase earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it returns (full Markdown page), when to use it, and provides a concrete example. It is self-contained and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% and the description essentially repeats the example ('E_SYM_001') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't enrich the parameter beyond its existing schema documentation.

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 verb 'Resolve' with the specific resource 'FLOX error code' and gives an example ('E_SYM_001'). It also lists output content (Markdown documentation page with fix recipe, causes, diagnostics), distinguishing it from generic docs_search or lookup_symbol siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('whenever a FloxError is raised in user code') and when-not-to-use ('never guess at a fix from the message alone'). This is direct usage guidance, though it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough.

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