explain_modeled_result

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool is educational only and not advisory, which informs safety traits. However, it does not mention idempotency or side effects. The return content is listed, but behavioral details like performance or auth needs are missing.

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 sentence with a disclaimer. It is concise, but the disclaimer dominates. Front-loading the functional purpose would improve clarity. No extraneous content.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to adequately explain the tool's purpose or how it differs from sibling tools like 'describe_plan_schema.' The return value is described vaguely, lacking details about the format or structure.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. The empty schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 focuses on a disclaimer and only vaguely states it returns 'framing, assumptions, caveats, and limitations for the current session.' The core purpose of explaining a modeled result is implied by the name but not clearly articulated. The verb 'return' is used instead of a specific action like 'explain' or 'describe.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like 'describe_plan_schema' or 'run_projection.' The phrase 'for the current session' hints at context but is insufficient. No alternative tools or conditions are mentioned.

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