agent_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose — no note on what the explanation contains, whether it reflects a snapshot in time, or any cost/latency characteristics of a diagnostic call.

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 sentence with no filler, and the diagnostic intent is front-loaded on the verb. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. Still, the sole parameter's accepted values and the situations that warrant this tool over agent_get are absent, leaving an agent to guess at invocation details.

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% for the single required 'target' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. Saying 'an agent' weakly implies target is an agent identifier, but it never states the accepted format (name vs. ID) or whether panes/sessions are also valid, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource (how Herdr detected an agent and why it reports its current state), which is meaningfully distinct from data-fetching siblings like agent_get or agent_list. It does not, however, name those siblings or state explicitly how it differs from 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?

The use case is implied — reach for this when you need the reasoning behind an agent's detected/current state rather than the raw state itself. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many agent_* siblings.

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