explain_manipulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'explain' and the Returns line imply a read-only operation, but the description does not address failure behavior, whether user_type changes the result, or any permissions or errors. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every line adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description leaves some operational context unstated: where pattern_id comes from, whether user_type is optional, and how the explanation varies by user type. Given the sibling tools, a pointer to detect_dark_patterns as the source of pattern_id would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does describe both parameters and gives example user_type values (child, elderly, average user), but pattern_id is only restated as 'The ID of the pattern' and the effect of user_type on the explanation is left implicit.

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 opening sentence 'Explain why a pattern is manipulative' states a specific verb, object, and intent, and the Returns line clarifies that this is about reasoning and harm potential. It is clearly distinguishable from detect/classify/scoring siblings, though it does not explicitly name them or state what the tool is not.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over detect_dark_patterns, classify_pattern, or risk_score. The description does not mention prerequisites, sequencing, or whether this tool should be used after detection or classification.

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