explain_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information will be returned (reasoning, examples, suggestions), which is useful context beyond just stating it retrieves rule details. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rule availability, error handling, or response format structure.

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 core purpose and specifies the detailed content to be returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 coding rules), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of specifying what information will be returned. It covers the key aspects (reasoning, examples, suggestions) that an agent would need to understand the tool's value. However, without an output schema, some details about the response structure remain unspecified.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, this doesn't create a significant gap. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter justifies a slightly higher score.

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 a specific verb ('Get detailed explanation') and resource ('Magento coding standard rule'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the content it provides (reasoning, bad/good examples, fix suggestions). It goes beyond a simple lookup to explain what kind of information will be returned.

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 detailed rule explanations are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rules_summary' or 'list_rules'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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