argot.explain_hunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'requires a fitted repository' and 'untruncated structured evidence', which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 main sentences plus one supplementary. Front-loaded with key purpose and usage. Every sentence is essential and informative. No redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, behavior (read-only, requires fitted repo), and usage context. Lacks explicit description of return values, but the description mentions 'untruncated structured evidence, including surprising identifiers and attestation counts' which gives adequate expectation for a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds valuable context: explains that file_path extension selects language model, file_source is optional to improve accuracy, and hunk_content should be only the changed lines. This adds meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'explain', the resource 'hunk-level voice result', and what it produces ('untruncated structured evidence, including surprising identifiers and attestation counts'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a follow-up when check_hunk flags or nearly flags a snippet, and covers the fitted voice model only.

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?

Clear guidance: 'Use as a follow-up when check_hunk flags or nearly flags a snippet; do not use it as a second independent check.' Also states 'It covers the fitted voice model only' and 'Read-only; requires a fitted repository.' Provides when to use and when not to use, with prerequisite.

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