mogut_explain_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool produces an explanation containing formula, inputs, and caveats, and the wording implies a read-only informational operation. It does not mention output format or whether the explanation is textual, but the behavior is not misleading.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then gives the three elements the explanation will contain. Everything in the description is relevant and none of the schema information is repeated.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool produces and where caveats will be addressed. The main missing pieces are example output, return format, and a more explicit statement about the expected frontier target.

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%, so the description adds minimal value here. It references 'inputs' as part of the explanation, but does not enumerate the parameter; the schema already does that with a clear list of valid metric names.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Explains') and a concrete resource: how a score is computed. It then states the exact content covered ('formula, inputs and caveats'), which separates it from sibling report, status, and discovery tools.

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 use context is implied rather than explicit: an agent would call this tool when it needs to understand how a metric was calculated. The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though no sibling tool appears to overlap with this explanation function.

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