get_exception_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get detailed documentation,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe error handling for invalid exception types, return format, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about side effects or failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a standard Args section. Every element is useful and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema exists, so the description efficiently covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings and does not mention error behavior. Given the simplicity and availability of an output schema, the description is mostly complete but leaves minor gaps.

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 input schema has no description for 'exception_type' (0% coverage), but the description's Args section provides clear meaning: 'The exception type name (e.g. "InputError", "AuthenticationError").' This adds substantial value beyond the schema by explaining the exact content and providing examples.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies exception type.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the inclusion of example exception type names clarifies the exact target. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_available_exceptions, which lists exception types.

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 is implied: the agent should call this when it knows a specific exception type name. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it reference list_available_exceptions for discovering available types. No direct usage guidance or exclusions are provided.

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