explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the output format (markdown, LLM-ready), the included sections, and how limit behaves. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the described behavior strongly implies a pure retrieval operation.

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 moderately long but front-loads the core purpose and uses a bullet list for the return sections. Every bullet adds value, and the param/return lines mirror typical docstrings without redundancy. A couple of sentences could be tightened, but it remains efficient.

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 the simple input schema and existing output-schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains the use case, both parameters, and the output content. It omits only error behavior for invalid node IDs, which is minor for this tool class and not a blocker for correct 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 0%, but the description fully compensates: node_id is explained with a concrete example and format, and limit is defined with both its default and the special 0 value. This is exactly the semantic content an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('Return a natural-language explanation') and a specific resource ('a code node'), and the bullet points differentiate it from callers/get_node by showing it aggregates kind, location, call graph, and documentation. The example node ID makes the scope concrete.

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?

It explicitly says this is ideal for understanding a node's role and context without reading source, and it names pack_snippets() as the follow-up tool to retrieve implementation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like callers or get_node for narrower queries, but enough guidance is present to route an agent.

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