get_error_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the response content (dead ends, workarounds, error chain info, source evidence), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that efficiently conveys the purpose and key details. It includes an example and a list of what the response contains without unnecessary 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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the input format and what the response includes, though it does not describe the response structure explicitly. This is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 already documents the single parameter error_id with a description, providing 100% coverage. The description enhances this by giving a concrete example ('python/modulenotfounderror/py311-linux'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'domain/slug/env'.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('full details for a specific error'), and scope (by ID), with an explicit example ID format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_errors_by_domain and search_errors by emphasizing 'full details' and enumerating specific content (dead ends, workarounds, error chain info, source evidence).

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 implies clear usage: use this tool when you have a specific error ID and need comprehensive details. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as lookup_error or get_error_chain, so the guidance relies on implication rather than direct comparison.

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