art.qa.explain_failure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only diagnostic operation ('Explain...') and discloses the return contents ('rule definition, issue details, and context'). It does not mention permissions, error behavior, or whether any state is recorded.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and immediately state the return payload. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives the needed invocation context and lists what is returned. It could be more specific about the shape of 'context' or error conditions, but it is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains rule_id and asset_id clearly. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Explain') and names the resource ('a specific QA rule failed for an asset'), so an agent can tell this is a diagnostic tool for individual failures. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like art.qa.rule or art.qa.history, but the failure-explanation scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion with list/get/history siblings.

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 'Explain why a specific QA rule failed for an asset' implies the intended use case: after a rule failure has been identified, retrieve the explanation. It does not, however, state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as art.qa.history or art.qa.rule.

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