edict_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns enriched repair context' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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, dense sentence with zero waste—it efficiently states the tool's purpose, input requirement, and outputs. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and outputs. However, as a tool with no annotations and potential complexity (error analysis), it lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'error' with its description. The description adds marginal value by specifying the error must be 'structured' and from the compiler, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema implies.

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 ('returns enriched repair context') and resource ('structured error'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edict_errors' (likely lists errors) or 'edict_debug' (general debugging). It specifies the exact outputs: pipeline stage, field metadata, example ASTs, and repair strategy.

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 by mentioning 'structured error from the compiler' and 'must have an error discriminator field', suggesting it's for post-error analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'edict_debug' or 'edict_errors', and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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