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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'The command is never executed,' which is a stronger behavioral guarantee than the generic read-only hint. It also mentions the use of a 'knowledge base,' giving context about the underlying data source. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a critical safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, clear purpose), and annotations are rich. However, the description does not explain what the output looks like (no output schema), nor does it clarify parameter semantics. For an explanation tool, the nature of the response (e.g., text explanation) is important context that is missing. The description is adequate but leaves gaps that the schema and annotations do not fill.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. The schema defines 'command' and 'distro' but does not explain their meaning, expected format, or relationship. The description's omission of parameter details fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names and patterns alone.

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 and statically inspect a command' using the 'Command Doctor knowledge base.' It also explicitly notes the command is never executed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that might run or modify commands (e.g., suggest_fix, lint_command). This is a specific verb-resource pairing with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 when to use the tool: when you need an explanation or static inspection of a command. The safety guarantee 'The command is never executed' provides a clear context cue for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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