explain_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It shows output format via Returns and Example, implying it's a query tool. But it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or disclose side effects/permissions.

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?

Description is concise: first sentence states purpose, then Args, Returns, Example. Every part is useful with no redundancy. Well-structured for easy scanning.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return format. Lacks error handling (e.g., what if file doesn't exist) and edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds full meaning: 'Project-relative path to the file (e.g. ``activation.py``)'. This clarifies format and gives an example, going beyond the bare schema.

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 'Explain why a file exists', providing a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools (create_event, get_project_story, search_history) are distinct, so no confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and example alone.

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