codix.debug.help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The verb 'map' implies analysis, but the description lacks sufficient context about what happens on invalid input or unrecognized errors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, earning its place.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected return format, how to use the optional parameters, or what to do if the error is unclear. The tool's actual usage requires more context than provided.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not compensate. It only implies the 'error' parameter and entirely ignores 'stack' and 'environment'. The agent has no guidance on how to populate these optional parameters or what they affect, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses the specific verb 'map' and identifies both the input (error message) and output (likely causes and verification commands). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like codix.project.analyze or codix.stack.recommend, which have different scopes.

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 implicitly suggests use when you have an error message, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since sibling tools do not directly compete, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not ideal.

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