explain_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the transformation and does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, output format, or whether it is read-only. For a pure conversion tool this is less critical, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond the operation warrants a low score.

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 with no filler — every word contributes.

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 is a simple one-parameter transformation, and the description covers both the expected input (error string) and output (next step). However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could mention return value structure or prerequisites, but for this simplicity it is adequately complete.

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 input schema has one 'message' string parameter with no description. The description clarifies that the message should be an API/MCP error string, adding meaning beyond the schema property name. However, it does not provide further format or example guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('API/MCP error string'), clearly stating the transformation to a plain-English next step. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are data-retrieval focused, so an agent can identify when to use it.

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 usage when an error string is encountered, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are all data retrieval, so there is no similar alternative, but the guideline is not explicitly spelled out.

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