explain_area

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gives a description, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not mutate data, or that no side effects occur. It also does not mention any access requirements, error behavior, or constraints. This is a gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 text is extremely compact and effective. The purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation in the second. Every word serves a purpose; there is no unnecessary repetition or fluff, and the placement is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete in explaining what the tool does and what the area values are. It does not define error or edge cases, but the simple nature of the tool and existence of an output schema reduce that need. It is not missing any critical piece for a successful call.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and no enum values, while the description compensates fully by explaining that 'obszar' is the area identifier and enumerating acceptable values: 'inwentaryzacja, dostęp, kontrola, incydent, rodo, dostawcy, ludzie, technika.' This directly adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and is essential for correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Opis pojedynczego obszaru: co audytor sprawdza, typowa luka i podstawa prawna.' This names the resource (pojedynczy obszar) and the content (what auditor checks, typical gap, legal basis). It differentiates conceptually from sibling tools (get_methodology, get_questionnaire) by focusing on a single audit area's explanatory description, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_methodology or get_questionnaire. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of that' language. The only implicit hint is 'pojedynczego obszaru', which implies a specific area focus, but that alone does not instruct the agent on selecting among the sibling tools.

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