explain_pass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It conveys that the tool is explanatory and scoped to the Default pipeline, and lists the facets it reports, but it does not disclose error behavior, output format, or side effects beyond what the verb 'explain' implies. The lack of a read-only flag or edge-case notes leaves some gaps, but the read-only nature is strongly inferred.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and covered aspects with no wasted words. It is maximally concise while preserving necessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential context: what it explains, the scope (Default pipeline), and the specific dimensions it covers. It lacks explicit usage guidelines, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 parameter 'name' with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Explain' and identifies the resource as 'a pass in the Default pipeline', then enumerates the covered aspects (order, phase, neighbors, verify tasks). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like explain_task or explain_abstraction.

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 description implies when to use the tool ('explain a pass in the Default pipeline') but does not explicitly state when it should be preferred over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or criteria for selection.

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