Plecs Diagnose

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden. The phrase 'suggest next steps' adds useful behavioral context that the tool returns actionable guidance, not just a restatement, but nothing about depth, limits, or unknown-error handling is disclosed.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and appending the secondary behavior.

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 one-parameter read-only diagnostic with an output schema, this is nearly sufficient—the output schema carries return details. Only minor gaps remain, such as how to handle unrecognized error strings.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The description's 'error string' maps to error_text and implies it should be the raw PLECS error text, but no format, verbatim-vs-paraphrase, or length guidance is added.

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+resource ('Explain a PLECS error string') plus an additional action ('suggest next steps'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling diagnostic tools like plecs_validate and plecs_check. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so no differentiation credit beyond implicit distinction.

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 implied: call it when you have an error string that needs interpreting. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., use plecs_validate to catch errors before they occur) are given.

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