cg_suggest_for_error

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format ({ok, recipe, hint, source}) and provides examples of mappings, giving insight into behavior. It could mention what happens if no match is found, but the examples are helpful.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by examples and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and examples. It is mostly complete, though it could explicitly state behavior for unmatched inputs.

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 single required parameter 'message' is described as a compiler error/diagnostic, with examples of specific error patterns. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by adding meaning beyond the type definition.

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: mapping a compiler error/diagnostic to a recipe demonstrating a synthesizable pattern. It uses specific verbs and examples (e.g., 'div/shift-by-a-variable → Recip') to illustrate the mapping, and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that some auto-attach suggestions.

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 explains that other tools (cg_check, etc.) already auto-attach suggestions, so this tool is for direct lookup when needed. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly 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.