error_context_get

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

The description outlines what the tool does (pulls runbooks, ADRs, recent flows, etc.) and mentions a 'briefing-Markdown' output. However, it lacks disclosures about behavior when no matches are found, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, this is an average level of transparency.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a title-like opening and then guidelines. However, it includes jargon like 'DF-316' and 'devflow-error-investigator skill' that may not be universally understood. Overall, it is well-structured but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains when and why to use it. It mentions the output type ('briefing-Markdown') but does not detail the structure or content of the response. With no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 has 80% description coverage for parameters, so the bar is higher. The description adds context by implying that errorMessage and stackTrace are used for matching, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline.

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's purpose as an 'Error-Driven Wiki Lookup' that pulls relevant wiki signals such as matching runbooks, ADRs, and recent flows when an error occurs. It distinguishes itself from sibling wiki tools by focusing specifically on error context.

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 tells agents to call this tool first when encountering an unexpected error, referencing a specific skill (devflow-error-investigator). It also provides a post-usage guideline about writing a runbook if none match. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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