troubleshoot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it provides causes and solutions without revealing limitations, response format, or whether it relies on external services. It does not disclose any side effects, error handling, or data scope, leaving significant behavioral aspects unknown.

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, containing only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second explains input and output. No unnecessary information or repetition exists, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality and expected input. It explains what happens (provides causes and solutions) and includes examples. While it lacks details on output structure or limitations, the simplicity of the tool keeps it mostly complete.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including examples. The description adds no new parameter information but reinforces the expected input types (error code, message, symptom). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 diagnoses and resolves errors during Samsung Checkout development, with a specific verb ('진단하고 해결 방법을 안내합니다') and resource (Samsung Checkout errors). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on troubleshooting rather than API lookup, guide generation, or code snippets, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 when to use by specifying inputs (error codes, messages, symptoms) and output (causes and solutions), giving clear context for the tool's use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like lookup_api or search_knowledge, so it falls short of a 5.

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