explain_rule

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 discloses the behavioral output (detailed explanation with examples and suggestions), which is helpful, but does not cover other traits like error handling, performance, or authentication needs. The description is accurate but lacks comprehensive behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without unnecessary words. Every part ('detailed explanation', 'reasoning, bad/good examples, and fix suggestions') adds value, making it appropriately sized and structured for quick understanding.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the content of the explanation, but could improve by mentioning output format or error cases. However, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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%, with the parameter 'ruleName' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples not already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get detailed explanation') and resource ('a Magento coding standard rule'), with explicit content details ('reasoning, bad/good examples, and fix suggestions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_rules' (which likely lists names) and 'get_rules_summary' (which might provide brief overviews).

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 when a detailed explanation of a rule is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rules_summary' or 'list_rules'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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