List VIPMP error codes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool uses a pre-built index when available, falls back to live extraction, and suggests calling rebuild_vipmp_index to refresh. This provides useful implementation context beyond annotations.

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 (three sentences plus parameter detail) and well-structured: purpose, argument description, and notes on fallback/refresh. No superfluous content.

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 tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers what the tool does, how to filter, and the caching/fallback mechanism. It is complete 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'query' parameter: optional substring filter that matches against code, reason, or endpoint, case-insensitive. This is essential for correct usage.

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 extracts every error code (numeric and symbolic) from VIPMP docs, with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_vipmp_docs (which lists documents) and list_vipmp_endpoints (which lists endpoints).

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 usage for retrieving error codes with optional substring filtering, and mentions fallback behavior. It could explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for error code retrieval.

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