Explain Cint compile diagnostics (C1001-C9102) or runtime faults (E_OVERFLOW-E_ASSERT) with before/after fixes.
Explain any compile diagnostic (C1001 to C9102) or runtime fault (E_OVERFLOW to E_ASSERT) with before/after fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Diagnostic or fault code (e.g. 'C1001', 'C3005', 'C9102', 'E_OVERFLOW') | |
| verbose | No | Accepted for compatibility; the answer is always complete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content ('before/after fixes'), but does not state that this is a read-only lookup, nor mention any cost, rate, or side-effect profile. Adequate but not rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that maps the input domain to the output value with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
For a simple one-required-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the purpose and the return shape well. A line on read-only behavior or on how it relates to the sibling doc tools would make it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the verbose flag's 'always complete' note. The description's code ranges add minor reinforcement but no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a precise verb ('Explain') and resource (compile diagnostics and runtime faults) with concrete code ranges, so an agent instantly knows what it returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like cint_check, cint_eval, cint_test, and the doc-retrieval tools.
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?
Usage is implied: call it when you hold a diagnostic or fault code and need an explanation. However, no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as cint_search_docs or cint_get_doc for related material.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.