explain

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the tool matches against a knowledge base and returns actionable advice. It does not disclose output format, error handling for unknown inputs, or any side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 efficiently convey purpose and a key usage hint. No superfluous content; front-loaded with core action.

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?

The description covers input types and behavior, but lacks details on output format. Given no output schema, a bit more on what 'actionable advice' looks like would improve completeness, but overall sufficient for 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, though it reinforces the context='general' usage. 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 explains raw output from foundry-zksync (error messages, logs, transactions) and matches against a knowledge base for actionable advice. It distinguishes from siblings like get_zksync_docs by focusing on specific outputs.

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 using context='general' for background, providing clear when-to guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for general documentation, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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