deed_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns: 'the page that code carries: what it means, why the rule exists, and usually an example.' This goes beyond a simple tautology by specifying the structure of the output, including the caveat that an example is 'usually' present. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'explain' strongly implies no mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and example ('Explain one diagnostic code, such as DEED4025'), then briefly details the return content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and even a caveat ('usually an example'). It could be slightly more complete by noting error behavior for invalid codes, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the parameter 'code', with the description 'A diagnostic code, like `DEED4025`.' The tool description adds only the qualifier 'one' (singular) and repeats the example format. Since the schema already fully explains the parameter, the description provides no additional semantic value, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Explain one diagnostic code, such as DEED4025.' The verb 'explain' is specific, and the resource is 'diagnostic code.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like deed_check, deed_test, and deed_run, which imply execution rather than explanation.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to understand a diagnostic code's meaning, rationale, and example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from the action-oriented sibling tools. A clear context is provided without exclusions.

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