aethis_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the explanation contains (criteria groups, requirements, exception paths) — important because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the content enumeration appended rather than padded. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter, read-only explain tool this is close to sufficient: the agent knows the input and what the output narrative will cover. It does not note whether the output is scoped/truncated for large rulesets, which is the only notable gap.

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?

There is a single parameter, ruleset_id, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The ID of the published rule ruleset'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the ID, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns human-readable descriptions of the rules inside a ruleset, and it names the sub-components covered (criteria groups, requirements, exception paths). The 'human-readable' framing implicitly separates it from the schema-oriented siblings (aethis_schema, aethis_rulebook_schema), but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to understand what a published ruleset actually enforces. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to aethis_explain_failure / aethis_schema for related needs.

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