explain_rule

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 the tool returns 'long-form rationale' and 'canonical fix pattern', indicating a read-only information retrieval. However, it does not describe output format, latency, or any prerequisites (e.g., rule_id must exist). The description is adequate but lacks depth for a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope (one rule id), and output type (long-form rationale and fix pattern). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the core function without major gaps. It could be improved by clarifying that the rule_id must be valid and that the output is textual, but it is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema has one parameter 'rule_id' with no description. The tool description provides an example ('e.g. 'LG001''), which adds some meaning by hinting at the format (likely rule identifiers like those in sibling tools). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully explain the parameter's validation or accepted values. The example is useful but not exhaustive.

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 provides 'long-form rationale and canonical fix pattern for one rule id', specifying the verb 'explain' (implied by the name) and the resource (a specific rule id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_rules' which lists all rules, by focusing on a single rule id.

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 for getting detailed rationale and fix pattern for a specific rule id, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lint_code' (which might apply rules) or 'list_rules' (which lists all rules). No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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