anchor_error_lookup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid codes. Only states the basic function.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object. No wasted words.

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?

Despite simple schema, description is under-specified. No output schema means description should explain return format (e.g., error details, suggestions). Also no behavioral or usage nuance beyond the one-liner.

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 covers 100% of parameters with useful descriptions (hex/decimal format, optional IDL/program ID). Description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'look up' and specifies resource 'Anchor error codes' with outcome 'fix suggestions'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about simulation, decoding, and PDA verification.

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?

Clear context: use for Anchor error codes. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended usage is apparent. Slight lack of explicit when-not-to-use.

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