sage_explain_error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'AI-friendly explanation' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

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, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word contributes, but the brevity limits utility.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the output format, error types covered, or any limitations. For an explanation tool, more detail is needed.

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% (one parameter with description). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; the parameter's purpose and default behavior are already documented in the schema. Baseline score 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 'Get AI-friendly explanation of command error' clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain a command error in an AI-friendly manner. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sage_suggest_fix' and 'sage_show_raw', but could be more specific about the type of error covered.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's for debugging errors (defaults to last failed command), but does not mention when not to use it or provide context about prerequisites or related tools.

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