explain_metric

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Explain' but does not confirm it is read-only, nor mentions any side effects, authentication needs, or output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return description, but behavioral safety is unaddressed.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. The args list is clearly formatted, and every element serves a purpose. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

For a single-parameter explanation tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and valid inputs. It does not explicitly state that the output is a textual explanation, but the output schema likely handles that. One could argue for completeness given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description enumerates all valid values for the 'metric' parameter (kappa, anchors, fingerprint, etc.) within the args section, providing crucial context that the schema (which only defines a string) lacks. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it explains 'what a judge-audit metric means and why it's the right question', specifying the resource (judge-audit metric) and distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like auditing, probing, or calibrating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for understanding metrics but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor does it mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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