explainThisCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output granularity ('line-by-line or block-by-block') which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that the tool does not execute code, typical output format (e.g., text/markdown), or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. It includes the key distinction of line-by-line or block-by-block without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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 relatively low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the core function and output granularity, while the schema handles parameter details. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention return format or supported languages for extra clarity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage: code, language, and detailLevel each have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: providing detailed, line-by-line or block-by-block explanations of code. It uses a specific verb ('provides') and resource ('code'), and the granularity mentioned distinguishes it from sibling tools like explainConcept (which likely explains concepts without code).

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 clear usage context: use this tool when you need to understand what a piece of code does. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings like reviewCode or debugHelper. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' threshold.

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