sc:explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'progressive learning approach' but does not specify what behavior that entails (e.g., adaptive explanations, follow-up questions). No side effects or constraints are disclosed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but it could be more structured (e.g., front-loading the verb). Still, it earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., text, step-by-step), error conditions, or how the progressive approach works. Missing key contextual information.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'progressive learning approach' hinting at behavior but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions. It provides no additional context for the flags or agent.

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 'Educational explanations with progressive learning approach', which indicates a verb (explain) and resource (educational topics), but it is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like sc:analyze or sc:brainstorm. The specific scope is unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly.

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