explain_code_security

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 'OmniGlyph Explanation Standard' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., output format, side effects, authentication needs). The description is overly brief and does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. Every word earns its place—there is no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool's two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is vaguely adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention what the explanation looks like, how findings are returned, or any constraints. While not critically incomplete for a straightforward tool, an agent would benefit from knowing the output format or expected input size.

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% description coverage for its two parameters, so the schema already explains what 'text' and 'source_name' are. The description adds marginal value by naming the 'OmniGlyph Explanation Standard' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not excel.

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: to explain Unicode source-code security findings using a specific standard. It specifies the verb 'explain' and the resource 'Unicode source-code security findings,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scan_unicode_security' (which scans) and 'explain_term' (which explains terms). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'explain_glyph' or 'audit_explain', so sibling differentiation is not fully realized.

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 its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, typical contexts, or when not to use it. For example, it does not clarify whether this tool should follow a scan or if it works independently. This lack of guidance forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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