aurora_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it reveals the tool returns full evidence, computed values, assumptions, parameters, and references, and clarifies it is not a summarized response. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'evidence/receipt' framing makes an informational read behavior clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and target ('Full evidence for ONE finding by claim_id') appear first, followed by contents and a crisp usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The return content is described well enough at a high level, and the tool is not complex, but the absence of any explanation for the required path parameter is a real gap. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should have clarified both inputs to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter names, but it only clarifies claim_id ('ONE finding by claim_id'). The required path parameter is never explained, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a bundle path, workspace path, or something else.

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') with a precise resource ('ONE finding by claim_id') and clearly states what is delivered: computed values plus the method's registry spec. The phrase 'this is the receipt, not a summary' explicitly distinguishes it from a higher-level findings tool, so an agent can separate it from siblings like aurora_findings.

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 an explicit condition for use: 'Use whenever you are about to cite, verify, or defend a specific statistical claim.' This is clear context but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the implicit contrast with a summary.

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