explain_error

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only diagnostic operation via 'analyze' and outlines what context is included. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but the read-only nature is evident from the verb and tool purpose.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Analyze a console error'), and delivers all essential information without unnecessary words.

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 gives a solid overview of what the tool does and hints at the returned context (network requests, React state, suggestions), but it lacks explicit details about the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the description could do more to explain what the agent receives.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (index and search) 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters fully.

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 that the tool analyzes console errors with full context, including network requests, React state, and debugging suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console or get_network, which are narrower in scope.

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 positions this as the 'best tool for diagnosing issues', providing clear context for when to use it. It implies a comprehensive analysis compared to single-purpose siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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