explain_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a human-readable explanation (not raw data), includes mechanism, severity, and evidence summary in the output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format specifics, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence directly states the purpose and output components. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output structure (mechanism, severity, evidence summary), but lacks details on error cases, response format, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves some operational gaps.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter relationships, formatting, or examples. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra value here.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Human-readable explanation of WHY an interaction is risky' specifies the action (explain), target (interaction), and outcome (risk explanation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_interactions' (likely checks for interactions) and 'get_evidence' (likely retrieves raw evidence) by focusing on explanatory output.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'check_interactions' or 'get_evidence', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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