explain_variable

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

The description discloses that the tool relies on standard_name, long_name, units, and other attributes, and that it returns a JSON string. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or failure modes, but the tool's purpose strongly implies no side effects. With no annotations, this is moderate disclosure.

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 definition is compact and well-organized: a clear purpose sentence, a short mechanism sentence, and distinct Args and Returns sections. There is no redundant or filler content; every line contributes useful information.

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's simplicity, just two string parameters, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides the essential information needed to call it. It lacks edge-case behavior and explicit sibling context, but these are not critical for a straightforward explain operation.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: file_path as the path to the NetCDF file and variable_name as the variable to explain. This adds the semantic meaning the structured schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') for a clear resource ('a variable') and specifies the output as a 'human-readable explanation.' It also details the attributes used, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_variable_info, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a natural-language explanation of a variable rather than raw metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the choice among the many sibling tools.

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