explain_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavioral trait: the tool does NOT execute the command. It also discloses the output style ('plain English') and enumerates the dimensions covered (including 'suspicious features', which signals its security-analysis role). It stops short of describing error behavior for malformed commands or unsupported shells, but the critical safety trait is stated upfront.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose and the non-execution caveat front-loaded, followed by an efficient colon-delimited enumeration of coverage. Every phrase earns its place; no filler.

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 core behavior, safety posture, and analysis scope are fully described, and the output schema covers return shape so return values need not be restated. However, two of three parameters are unexplained at 0% schema coverage, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding valid shell values and token semantics. The 'suspicious features' mention aligns the tool with its forensic sibling family, which helps contextual selection.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies the required 'command' parameter (the command line to explain), but 'shell' (including what 'auto' means and valid values) and 'include_tokens' (what tokens are) receive zero explanation in either the schema or the description. The agent cannot reliably parameterize calls beyond the required field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Explain a single command line in plain English') and enumerates the exact scope of analysis: executable, arguments, pipelines, redirections, environment changes, and suspicious features. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_script (presumably whole scripts), decode_blob (encoded data), and compare_scripts (comparisons).

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 'single command line' scoping provides implicit guidance that this tool is not for full scripts or encoded blobs, and 'without executing it' implies safe analysis. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use routing is given — the agent must infer the boundary with analyze_script from the word 'single'.

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