ruvltra_code_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description only restates the tool's purpose and hints at input quality; it does not disclose possible side effects, output format, process requirements, or limitations. For an explainer tool, this is a relatively low-risk operation, but with zero annotation coverage the description still fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. The first sentence captures the essential purpose, and the second sentence provides actionable guidance for better results. It is concise, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which is acceptable given the simple tool scope.

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?

Given that there are 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It does not clarify parameter options, timeout semantics, or how this tool fits alongside similar code-related siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter and usage context leaves an agent with meaningful ambiguity.

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 description overage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters. While 'audience' is loosely implied by 'for a given audience' and 'language' is hinted by the English advice, there is no description of what values these accept. 'timeoutMs' remains completely unexplained, including what it controls and its unit. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb+resource action: 'Explain code clearly for a given audience.' This distinguishes it at least implicitly from sibling tools like code_generate, code_review, and code_refactor, since 'explain' is a distinct purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to recognize that this tool explains rather than modifie or generates code.

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 offer some usage guidance by saying 'For best output quality, provide instructions and context in English.' This implies the user should supply relevant context and that English input is preferred. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over the sibling code tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative relationships.

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