explain_intent

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 describes the tool's function (explaining intents) and context (pre-commitment verification), but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or performance characteristics. It doesn't contradict annotations, but doesn't fully compensate for their absence.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (explaining trading intents), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context, but lacks details on output format or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'intent' as 'The intent JSON to explain.' The description adds value by clarifying what the intent contains (trading details like crypto, amounts, blockchain) and the output's nature ('plain-language explanation'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a plain-language explanation') and resources ('trading intent'), specifying what aspects are explained (crypto/tokens/assets, amounts, blockchain, privacy/KYC settings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_intent' or 'validate_intent' by focusing on explanation rather than creation or validation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to confirm swap/trade/exchange terms with your user before they commit.' This provides clear context for usage (pre-commitment verification) and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'commit_intent' (for finalizing) or 'parse_natural_language' (for initial parsing).

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