explain_build_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Map ... to explanation, causes and fixes' conveys a read-only lookup behavior and indicates the output shape, but it does not state how unknown error codes are handled, whether file/line/message affect the result, or what exact response format is returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; it names the input, resource, and output in one pass.

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?

Although the tool is conceptually simple, the lack of any parameter details beyond error_code, no output schema, and no annotation safety information leaves the agent without enough context to use the optional parameters or know what response to expect. The description is complete only for the minimal error_code-only call.

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. It clarifies that error_code is the code to map, but it says nothing about the optional file, line, and message parameters, leaving their role in the mapping unclear.

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 has a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('a Keil/armclang error code'), and states the output categories ('explanation, causes and fixes'). It is clearly a lookup/explanation tool rather than a build or debug action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the similar-sounding parse_build_errors sibling.

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 usage context is implied: when you have a Keil/armclang error code and want an explanation. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of parse_build_errors or build tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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