local_explain_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the explanation is generated by a local model, not Claude, and that with 'path', the code is read server-side and does not enter Claude's context. It also advises reviewing the explanation. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only or destructive, though the context implies it is non-destructive.

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 well-structured with a bold recommendation, purpose statement, and parameter list. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Slight trimming could improve conciseness, but it remains effective and front-loaded.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behavioral details. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'code' is code to explain, 'path' is a file path (read server-side), and 'question' is an optional focus. It clarifies that 'code' and 'path' are alternatives, adding meaning beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 explains code in prose, using a local model. It distinguishes itself from reading a file with 'Read' when the file is large and only an explanation is needed. The verb 'explain' and resource 'code' are specific, and the purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: prefer over reading a file when the file is >200 lines or >10 KB and only an explanation is required. It also indicates that for literal content, one should use 'Read' instead. This provides clear usage guidance.

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