explain_fabric_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'detailed explanation,' which implies a read-only, informational operation, but doesn't specify aspects like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral details. For a simple informational tool, it's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'concept' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the types of concepts (e.g., 'fundamental concepts, terminology, or architectural patterns'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fabric or Minecraft modding concept'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by focusing on concept explanations rather than examples, versions, or documentation searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools listed, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this to understand fundamental concepts, terminology, or architectural patterns,' which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., use search_fabric_docs for broader searches). This lack of explicit exclusions or named alternatives limits the score.

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