explain

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at non-execution with 'trace only', but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, output format, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 wasted words, which is structurally concise. However, it is too terse and uses jargon ('EXPLAIN trace', 'query_*') that obscures clarity, so it could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, parameter details beyond a vague 'kind + args', prerequisites, or any contextual information. The link to query_* tools is the only context provided, which is insufficient.

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 coverage is 20% (only 'token' has a description). The description adds a hint that 'kind + its args' correspond to query_* tools, which gives some meaning to 'kind' and the other parameters, but it leaves depth, start, and value unexplained, providing minimal compensation for the low coverage.

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 identifies an operation ('EXPLAIN trace') and a scope ('for a query (kind + its args, as query_*)'), which differentiates it from sibling query tools. However, the meaning of 'EXPLAIN trace' is ambiguous and relies on domain knowledge, making it only vaguely clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The reference to 'query_*' implies a connection to sibling tools, but it does not state when to choose this tool over query_by_kind, query_by_status, or others, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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