codapult_guard_explainExplains a Guard rule or contract, including its evidence and applicable scope, so you can understand why an architectural check applies to your project.
Explain a Guard rule or contract with its evidence and applicable scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an initialized workspace or specific permissions, or what happens when the id is unknown. It hints at return content ('evidence and applicable scope') but nothing about failure modes or cost.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the verb/resource leads. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, a one-sentence description leaves too much unknown for an agent to call this confidently in a crowded sibling namespace. At minimum it should state the read-only nature and how it differs from guard_context/guard_audit.
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 50%: 'root' is documented in the schema while 'id' has no description. The phrase 'a Guard rule or contract' does implicitly map 'id' to a rule/contract identifier, which adds modest value, but no format, prefix, or lookup guidance is given.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Explain') with a specific resource ('a Guard rule or contract') and adds what the answer contains (evidence and applicable scope). That is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like codapult_guard_context, codapult_guard_audit, or codapult_guard_analyze.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the thirteen sibling guard tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be initialized or a rule must already exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.