diagnose_api_error

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It only states that it explains errors and fixes, omitting details like return format, limitations (e.g., only common errors), or how the error parameter is processed. The input schema accepts both string and object, but the description does not clarify usage.

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 (one sentence) but lacks structure and detail. While brevity can be a virtue, it omits critical information and front-loads only the core purpose, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of annotation coverage and missing parameter guidance means the definition is incomplete for a diagnostic tool. It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 required parameter 'error' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no meaning. It does not explain acceptable formats, examples, or what constitutes a valid error input. This severely hinders effective use.

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's function: 'Explain common weclapp API errors and likely fixes.' The verb is specific (explain), the resource is well-defined (common weclapp API errors), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_response_structure and check_field_presence, which focus on different aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like explore_entity_sample or validate_filter could also be relevant in different scenarios, but the description does not mention any context or exclusions.

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