art.memory.explain_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses that the tool produces an explanation covering rules, anchors, decisions, avoidance guidance, and history, while 'Explain' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not detail output format or error behavior, but for a simple explanatory tool the disclosed content is meaningful.

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 that states the primary action and resource first, then uses a compact colon-delimited list to enumerate output categories. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the scope of the explanation. It could be more complete by mentioning output format or how this differs from related retrieval tools, but the schema covers parameter defaults and the description covers output content.

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%, with both style_id and style_version already documented as defaulting to latest. The description adds only the notion of 'current' style, which slightly enriches the mental model but does not add substantive parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Explain'), names the resource ('style'), and enumerates the content of the explanation: core rules, canonical anchors, important decisions, things to avoid, and history. This is more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like art.get_style, art.get_style_rules, or art.memory.get_style_history.

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 phrase 'current or specified style' implies this tool can explain either a current/default style or one identified by parameters, and the parameter defaults are documented. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose explain_style over sibling tools, no exclusions, and no notes about prerequisites or alternatives.

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