explain_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the return content (proposing model's claim, confidence, verifier's reasoning, standard cited) and the purpose, providing significant context beyond a simple 'explain.' It does not discuss error behavior or the optional video_id, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence provides a clear, front-loaded summary, and the second adds essential detail about the evidence chain and its purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, and the core purpose and content are well described. However, the optional video_id parameter is not explained, and there is no mention of error behavior or constraints. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and edge-case behavior.

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 0%, and the description mentions neither alert_id nor video_id. The phrase 'behind one alert' implies alert_id is the identifier, but the optional video_id is completely unexplained. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare type titles in the schema, so it does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the full evidence chain behind one alert.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling listing tools by focusing on a single alert and elaborates on the components it returns (claim, confidence, verifier's reasoning, standard cited). This is explicit and unambiguous.

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 states the intended use case: 'so a supervisor can judge the alert rather than take it on trust,' giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would warrant a 5, but the purpose is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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