explain_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool reads the file, requires a scanned project, or any side effects. The explanation is minimal and assumes the user knows what 'explains' entails.

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 concise, only 5 lines, with clear structure (purpose line then parameter list). No unnecessary words. However, the parameter descriptions are cramped into a docstring format, but still efficient.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains, any preconditions, or the tool's role among 23 sibling tools. For a file explanation tool, more context about the explanation style or limitations is needed.

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%, but the description provides one-line explanations for each parameter: 'path' as project root, 'file_path' as file to analyze, and 'detail_level' with options (brief, detailed, comprehensive). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though definitions are basic.

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 states the tool 'explains a file in human-understandable way', which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain_function', which could also explain a file's function. The verb 'explains' and resource 'file' are clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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