get_error_solutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced matching,' which hints at improved search capabilities, but doesn't explain what 'enhanced' entails, such as fuzzy matching or prioritization. It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Find solutions for specific errors with enhanced matching.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations. While it covers the basics, it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters: 'error_pattern,' 'limit,' and 'detail_level.' The description doesn't add any extra semantic meaning beyond this, such as examples or usage tips. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or enhance the parameter understanding.

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: 'Find solutions for specific errors with enhanced matching.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('solutions for specific errors'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_similar_queries' or 'search_conversations,' which might also involve error-related searches, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for error troubleshooting versus general search. Without such distinctions, users might struggle to choose between this and tools like 'search_conversations' or 'find_similar_queries.'

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