resolve_error

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying return formats for both modes (exact-match vs. search results) and mentioning 'verified fix' and confidence. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't cover limitations like rate limits or auth, which are likely not needed given the read-only nature.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The USE WHEN and RETURNS sections are clearly delineated, and every sentence provides actionable information. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with four parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains when to use each parameter, provides concrete examples, and describes return types. However, it does not clarify what happens if both `error` and `query` are supplied, or how `context` affects results beyond the schema description, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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%, providing baseline meaning for each parameter. The description adds semantic value by explaining the relationship between `error` and `query` as mutually exclusive modes, clarifying that `limit` applies only in query mode, and giving example values. This exceeds the schema alone, though not by a huge margin.

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: mapping an error or free-text query to a verified fix. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on error resolution, which none of the listed sibling tools directly address. The verb-resource pair is specific and immediately understandable.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions for both error and query inputs, telling the agent exactly which parameter to pass in each case. It also advises preferring this tool over guessing, but does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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