explain_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, whether it makes network calls, or what side effects (if any) it has. Only the purpose and a usage trigger are provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage context. There is no filler or repetition, and every sentence earns its place.

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 has a required input with no schema description and no annotations, yet the description does not specify what to pass or how the tool behaves. Although an output schema exists to cover return values, the input side and behavioral profile remain too vague for reliable invocation.

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% and the single parameter error_text has no description in the schema. The description does not explain what the error text should contain (e.g., raw console line, full stack trace) or any formatting expectations. Parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb (Explain) and resource (common Lua console errors) plus an additional action (suggest likely fixes). It is clearly distinct from siblings like read_runtime_console or validate_script, but it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It provides a clear context trigger: 'Use when the in-game Console tab reports runtime errors after a sync.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related tasks.

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