explain_abstraction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scope of abstractions covered, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none as an explain tool), output format, or any limitations, though these are partially mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes concrete examples. It is highly concise with no fluff, earning a top score.

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 (one well-documented parameter) and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the overlap with sibling tool 'explain_pass' is unresolved: since 'passes' are explicitly listed, it's unclear when to pick 'explain_abstraction' over 'explain_pass'. This missing differentiation affects completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter with a detailed description and examples, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already handles it well, so no further deduction is needed.

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 verb 'Explain' and the resource 'stack abstraction', listing concrete categories (IR/passes/codegen/ISA/runtime or Ascend hardware) with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'explain_pass' by covering a broader scope while still being specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., 'explain_pass') would be more appropriate. The schema parameter description hints at using 'search_abstractions()' first, but the main description lacks usage context.

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