claude_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (likely it is, but not confirmed), what the output format is (e.g., plain text, structured), or any potential side effects. The description is too brief to provide sufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action. Every word is meaningful, and it avoids 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?

For a simple explanation tool, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks completeness. It does not mention what sort of explanation the agent can expect (e.g., code logic, architecture, usage), nor does it address output format or length. Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return value. It is minimally complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context ('Ask Claude Code to explain how specific code or a feature works'), reinforcing the purpose but not adding detailed semantics beyond what the schema already provides for target and project. No additional parameter constraints or examples are given.

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 explains 'how specific code or a feature works', using a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('code/feature'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like claude_ask (general questions), claude_task (execution), or claude_review (code review).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. An agent would have no explicit guidance on selecting this tool over similar sibling tools.

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