explain_with

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the ability to choose brief or detailed, but omits significant traits such as sending code to third-party agents, potential latency/cost, error behavior, or what the returned explanation contains. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that invokes external AI agents.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise with no filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too spartan. It does not explain what 'detailed' means in terms of output, how timeout behaves, privacy implications, or how to choose among sibling tools. A tool that sends code to external agents should disclose more context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by explaining that 'brief/detailed' maps to the detail parameter and 'specific agent' maps to agent, but it doesn't go beyond the schema. No compensation needed, but also no added depth.

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's purpose: getting a code explanation from a specific agent. It also mentions the brief/detailed level, which helps differentiate it from broader ask-style tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ask_agent, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage context—when you need code explanation from a chosen agent at a chosen detail level. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings like debug_with or review_code, nor any exclusions. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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