list_error_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses specific error code pitfalls (e.g., insufficient balance, authentication failure) and states the inclusion of a retry judgment table, which informs the agent of the tool's scope and limitations.

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 very concise and front-loaded, but it uses a non-standard format (parenthetical examples, semicolons). The key information is present, but the structure could be clearer for an agent.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, lists concrete examples of what it reveals (specific error codes, pitfalls), and mentions the retry table. There are no gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. This is a baseline 4, upgraded to 5 because the description's content about error codes and retry table is exactly what the agent needs to know for this parameterless tool.

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 what the tool does: it lists Open API error codes and common pitfalls (e.g., insufficient balance returns 400 P0001, authentication failure returns error=null 401, 503 fail-closed). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints or signing_guide.

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 mentions it includes a retry judgment table by status code, implying it should be used for understanding error handling and retry logic. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_endpoint or signing_guide.

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