magento_error_parser

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool parses errors and provides file paths/fix suggestions, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not clarify what happens with unrecognized error patterns or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, list of recognized patterns, and output summary. No superfluous content, but the structure could front-load the most critical info (the purpose) more aggressively.

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 the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (file paths, fix suggestions). It could be more explicit about the output format, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its use.

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 single 'error' parameter is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a parser for Magento error messages and stack traces, mapping them to source files and root causes. It lists specific error patterns it handles, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or find components.

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 use when encountering Magento errors, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like magento_search or magento_grep. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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