explain_diagnostic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'code' and 'text', which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the explanation is static or dynamic, or whether all codes are supported.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage instruction and return values. No waste.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, input format, and return values. The only gap is lack of explicit differentiation from similar documentation tools in the sibling list, but for a simple single-param read tool, this is largely complete.

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%. The description provides format examples for the 'code' parameter ('BPP101' or '101'), which compensates for the lack of schema description and clarifies accepted input formats. Baseline for 1 param is 4; the description adds meaningful detail.

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?

States a specific verb (explain) and resource (bpp-lint diagnostic code), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool lint_control_file as the source of diagnostics. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from lookup_docs or search_docs which might overlap for documentation-related queries.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use it to explain a lint_control_file diagnostic to the user in plain language.' This tells the agent when to use it (after lint_control_file produces a diagnostic). However, it doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives like lookup_docs or search_docs.

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