analyze-error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether 'deep analysis' implies significant cost/latency, whether it hits an external service, or what the analysis produces.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains what the includeContext/includeHistory/includeSuggestions flags change about the result, nor what an agent should expect back from a 'deep analysis' call.

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%, so all four parameters including the required errorId and the three include* flags are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Perform deep analysis of a specific error', which is clearer than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling detect-errors, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary between detecting and analyzing an error.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative detect-errors. An agent cannot tell from this text whether analysis should follow detection, replace it, or be used independently.

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