explain_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool requires no API key, accepts either JSON or a message, and provides an explanation plus a suggested fix. It does not mention potential limitations, such as inability to handle malformed errors, but it is honest about what the tool does.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose, the required input format, and a key constraint ('No API key required'). There is no filler and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity helper tool, the description covers the input required, the optional improvement path, and the expected behavior. There is no output schema, but the promised 'plain language' explanation and fix is enough context for an agent to understand what will come back. It does not document edge cases, but none are essential to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds useful context with 'Paste the error JSON or message' and notes the optional query 'improves the analysis', but this supplements rather than substantially extends the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Explains') with a precise resource ('monday.com API error response') and an outcome ('suggests a fix'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_query or run_query, which operate on the query side rather than explaining errors.

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 implies the right moment to use the tool: when you have a monday.com API error response to interpret. It also clarifies that no API key is required and that pasteing the error is the entry point. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like validate_query or run_query, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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