explain_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the tool is offline, explains rather than executes (implied by 'before running'), and lists the scope of parsing. It does not explicitly state 'does not execute the command,' but the wording strongly implies a non-executing read-only analysis.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs the most important details (offline, token-by-token, coverage areas, risk assessment, use case) without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent what the tool does, what it covers, and when to use it. The expected output type is described as a 'plain-English, token-by-token breakdown' plus risk assessment, which is sufficient for invoking and interpreting the result.

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 covers the single parameter fully with a clear description and example. The tool description adds context that the parameter is a shell command line, but no additional semantic depth is needed beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Explain any shell command offline' — and enumerates exactly what the explanation covers (program, flags, operands, pipes, redirects, subshells, sed/awk/jq, risk assessment). This distinguishes it from the sibling check_command_safety, which presumably focuses on safety checks rather than full explanatory breakdowns.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it to understand what a command line does before running or recommending it.' It does not explicitly mention check_command_safety or state when not to use this tool, so some alternative routing is left to inference, but the intended scenario is well defined.

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