explain_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' examples and guidance, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or how it behaves. For a simple explain tool, this is a modest gap, but without annotations, the description should be more explicit about expected behavior and safe use.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and a short 'Args' block with parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides necessary parameter examples without unnecessary prose. Every sentence 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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is sufficient. It could add a bit more context about when to use this vs alternatives, but that is already addressed in the usage_guidelines dimension. Overall, the description is complete enough for a simple explain 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 schema does not include a description for module_name, so the tool description fully compensates by listing the parameter and providing concrete examples ('clearskies-aws', 'clearskies-graphql', etc.). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title, making the parameter usage clear.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get usage examples and integration guidance for a specific clearskies extension module.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_module_info (which likely returns metadata) and list_modules (which enumerates modules). The focus on usage and integration guidance is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 implies usage when you need usage examples and integration guidance for a clearskies module. It gives no exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to select it. However, it does not distinguish itself from get_module_info or suggest_modules, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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