debug_protheus_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines official and community knowledge and provides diagnosis, probable causes, fixes, and prevention. This gives a clear sense of its behavior and output, though it omits details like rate limits or response format.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how it combines knowledge, and the supported error types. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations/output schema, the description covers the key aspects: domain, supported error families, and output categories (diagnosis, causes, fixes, prevention). It does not specify exact return format or limitations, but is adequate for an analysis tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage, clearly describing errorMessage, stackTrace, and environment. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Investigate[s] Protheus runtime errors, stack traces, AppServer logs, and common failures,' with a specific verb and resource scope. It also enumerates supported error types (Access Violations, Deadlocks, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_protheus_docs.

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 Protheus runtime errors and lists supported categories, giving clear context for when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_protheus_docs for documentation lookups instead.'

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