hydra_explain_error

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool translates raw errors into plain language and proposes a fix, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, the output form, and the exact usage context. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 analysis tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It names the triggering sibling tools and explains the parameter source, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to call it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by tying error_message to the uninterpretable message returned by hydra_validate_job or hydra_write_job. This gives the single parameter practical meaning beyond its generic 'Error Message' label.

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 a specific verb ('Explain'), names the exact resource (Hydra ETL validation error), and states the intended outcome ('propose the fix'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hydra_validate_job and hydra_write_job, which produce rather than explain 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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: use when hydra_validate_job or hydra_write_job returns an uninterpretable message. This tells the agent both when to invoke the tool and which sibling outputs it is meant to clarify.

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