get_error_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether any authorization is needed, what 'detailed information' includes, or what the response format looks like. The description only asserts it retrieves details, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'detailed information' means or what the response will include. It does not, and it also fails to differentiate from sibling tools. The tool is minimally described but not complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 covers the only parameter (errorId) with a clear description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific error', so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already provides the necessary semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific error'), which clearly identifies it as a read tool for a single error. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings 'get_errors' (plural) and 'get_error_messages' (messages), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate the 'detailed information' from message-level data.

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 context is implied by the word 'specific' and the singular 'errorId' parameter, suggesting use when retrieving details for one error. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_errors' or 'get_error_messages', and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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