ops_explain_error

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 adds valuable context about the data source ('latest diagnostics snapshot'), implying read-only access to cached diagnostic data. However, it lacks essential safety information (idempotency, performance cost, error handling for invalid failure_ids) that annotations would typically cover.

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 a single, efficient sentence of 11 words that front-loads the action ('Explain') and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by conveying the transformation (failure record → human-readable explanation) and data source (diagnostics snapshot).

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core function. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, it should explicitly mention the relationship to 'ops_recent_failures' for obtaining failure IDs to be truly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (failure_id lacks description), so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps the parameter through the phrase 'recorded failure,' giving semantic meaning to what failure_id represents. However, it does not describe the parameter's format, valid values, or that it should be obtained from sibling list operations, leaving documentation gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('recorded failure'), clearly indicating it provides human-readable diagnostics for a specific error record. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'ops_recent_failures' (which likely lists failures), leaving minor ambiguity about the workflow relationship.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ops_recent_failures' or 'ops_incident_create'. It omits crucial context that this tool requires a specific failure_id likely obtained from listing failures first, and does not indicate if it should be used during active incidents or post-mortem analysis.

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