explain_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it produces an explanation and mentions the session_id condition; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or what the output format is. This leaves important behavioral traits unexplained.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and the optional parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the explanation includes and any behavioral implications. It clearly states the purpose but leaves gaps around output format and side effects, making it only minimally complete for a tool handling complex knowledge structures.

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 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both json_data and session_id. The description's mention of session_id adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 produces a human-readable explanation of a Knowledge Structure, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like explain_diff (explains differences) and validate_knowledge (validates structure).

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 gives context for the optional session_id parameter (explaining an existing session vs. creating a new one from json_data), but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_diff or validate_knowledge. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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