dts_explain_error

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

With no annotations available, the description provides critical behavioral details: it clarifies the semantics of `ok` versus `indicates_success`, warning against conflating lookup success with code success. This adds meaningful transparency about the tool's output interpretation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential band mappings and a cautionary note. No superfluous words; each sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the exit-code bands, the meaning of `ok`, and the separate `indicates_success` field. It lacks only a minimal example or explicit statement about return type, but overall it is sufficient.

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 parameter `code` has zero schema-description coverage, but the description compensates by defining code ranges and bands, giving the integer parameter concrete meaning. This enables users to know what values to pass and what they represent.

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 DTS Engine exit codes using a lookup table. This verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools like dts_ping or dts_create_job, which perform other operations.

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 the tool should be used when one encounters a DTS Engine exit code and needs to interpret it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the distinct purpose makes the usage context clear.

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