aem_explain_error_handling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys that the tool is informational (explanation and guidance) and non-destructive, which is adequate for a reference tool. However, it provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., does it require network access? Is it stateless?). The lack of contradiction keeps the score at a baseline 3.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the key action ('Explain') and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the purpose. It could hint at the scope of errors covered (e.g., API vs. configuration), but the current level is adequate for a straightforward explanation 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage (no parameters), the baseline is 4. The description adds no extra parameter info, which is acceptable.

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: explaining common AEM Assets integration errors and providing retry/mitigation guidance. It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource (errors & guidance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aem_explain_auth or aem_explain_pagination.

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 when encountering AEM Assets integration errors, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need auth info, use aem_explain_auth). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.

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