d3p_eli5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds context like 'Cost: 5 sats' and 'Endpoint: eli5', but does not discuss idempotency, error handling, or permissions. It gives moderate insight into 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 two paragraphs plus parameter info. It is well-structured and informative, but includes extra details like cost and endpoint that could be considered verbose. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The purpose, usage, and parameter semantics are well covered. It feels complete for a straightforward text transformation tool.

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 only shows a single 'params' string with default '{}' and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that the JSON string should contain a 'text' field (required) and what it expects ('Complex text to simplify'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Explain Like I'm Five. Paste in jargon-heavy text and get back a version a kindergartner could understand.' It uses specific verbs (simplify, swap) and resources (technical terms). This distinguishes it from siblings like d3p_vibe-check or d3p_error-translator, which have different functions.

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 a usage hint: 'Chains great after search or code analysis.' This implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though no direct competing sibling exists.

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