enhance_error_message

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying what the tool does ('Show additional context and suggestions'), which aligns with the read-only nature. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like whether this performs AI analysis, what format the enhancements come in, latency expectations, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some context beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by directly describing the tool's function.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), annotations cover read-only safety, and there's only 1 parameter, the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, for a tool that presumably performs AI-enhanced error analysis, the description lacks important context about what 'additional context and suggestions' means, how comprehensive they are, or any limitations. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant questions unanswered about the tool's capabilities.

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 0%, meaning parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, there's only 1 parameter (a nested object 'model'), so the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but since the description provides zero parameter information, it drops to 3. The description doesn't explain what 'model' should contain or how to structure the error enhancement request.

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 purpose: 'Show additional context and suggestions for error messages.' It specifies the verb ('Show') and the resource ('additional context and suggestions for error messages'), making it clear this is an enhancement/analysis tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'check_syntax' or 'check_initialization_errors' that might also handle errors differently.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this enhancement is most useful, or what types of errors it works best with. Given the sibling tools include multiple error-related tools ('check_initialization_errors', 'check_syntax'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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