explain_symptom

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only, side-effect-free explanation, no mention of whether it needs network/backend access, and no limits or caveats. The output schema covers return values, but the safety/behavior profile is left entirely to inference.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the input format guidance and examples. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Return values are handled by the existing output schema, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a tool with three sibling diagnostics it never clarifies when this explanation tool is the right choice versus diagnose_stack, check_port, or read_error_logs, leaving a meaningful routing gap.

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 0% and the single parameter is just named "text", so the description must compensate. It does so usefully by specifying "raw error text" and giving two literal examples ('localhost refused to connect', 'MySQL shutdown unexpectedly'), which conveys the expected format and granularity.

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?

Specific verb (explain) plus resource (a localhost symptom or error message), reinforced by two concrete examples of the input. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like diagnose_stack, but the purpose is unmistakable from the text alone.

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?

"Paste the raw error text" implies how to invoke it, but there is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as diagnose_stack or read_error_logs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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