get_gotchas

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it implies a read-only lookup of a static knowledge base but never states it is non-destructive or side-effect free, nor anything about result volume when passing nothing for 'all'. It does disclose the record format, and an output schema exists to cover the return shape, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the record format before the query instruction, and every clause carries information. The inline examples earn their place by showing acceptable input granularity.

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 single optional parameter with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and the empty-input behavior. Only the matching/ranking semantics and the read-only nature remain unstated, which are minor for a retrieval tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'symptom' is explained as words of your problem or error, marked optional via the 'or nothing for all' fallback, and illustrated with two concrete examples. It does not specify matching behavior (substring vs fuzzy), leaving a small gap.

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 states a specific resource (known pitfalls) and even defines the record shape, 'symptom -> cause & fix', which no sibling tool provides. It is distinguishable from reference siblings like search_guide or ask because the payload is explicitly troubleshooting pitfalls rather than docs or general Q&A.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance: pass words of your problem or error, or nothing to retrieve all. That establishes the troubleshooting context and the no-argument fallback, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like ask for open-ended questions.

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