krl_lookup_kss_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the return payload (explanation, root cause, remediation) but never states that this is a read-only lookup, nor what happens for an unknown or out-of-range message ID, nor the scope of code coverage. Useful but incomplete behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes nothing structurally, though the long enumerated list of example message numbers partially duplicates the examples already present in the schema field description.

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?

Two parameters, fully documented schema, no output schema — and the description does explain what comes back, so an agent knows the shape of the result. Only the unknown-code and coverage behavior are left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the message_id format by listing valid example codes and implies that output is localized, which lightly supports the locale parameter, but adds no detail the schema does not already carry.

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?

States a specific verb (Resolves), a precisely scoped resource (KUKA KSS error and status message numbers), and the three outputs it produces (localized explanations, root causes, remediation steps). None of the siblings do this, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is strongly implied — you call it when you have a numeric KSS message code — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing guidance versus nearest siblings like krl_lookup_system_var or krl_workspace_diagnostics. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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