genius.explain

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful output context ('full signal breakdown with per-factor scores') in the absence of an output schema, and 'explain' implies a non-destructive read, but it omits any auth prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects that a no-annotation tool should ideally disclose.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient and readable, though it could be marginally denser by folding in the ranking context.

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 six-parameter tool, the description conveys what is returned (useful given no output schema) but says nothing about the preset enum's effect or how the input result should be supplied. Coverage is adequate but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 83% (>80%), so the schema already documents five of the six parameters, including repo, path, query, snippet, and language. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how 'preset' alters scoring), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explain') and a defined resource ('why a code result ranked where it did'), and adds the deliverable ('full signal breakdown with per-factor scores'). An agent can grasp the purpose quickly, though it never names or contrasts the closely related sibling genius.find_best, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: the tool is clearly meant to be applied to an already-ranked code result, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling that produces the ranking (genius.find_best). The agent must infer the workflow context.

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