explain_function

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by mentioning that side effects are explained. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is (though output schema exists), or any permission needs. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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 with one sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it is efficient and without fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's function and parameter details, and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. It lacks mention of prerequisites like project scanning (given siblings include scan_project), but for a straightforward tool with three required params, 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful summaries for all three parameters: 'path' as project root directory, 'file_path' as the file containing the function, and 'function_name' as the function to explain. This adds significant value beyond the schema names, making parameter semantics clear.

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 that the tool explains a function's behavior, parameters, and side effects, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like explain_file (for entire files) and get_symbol_detail (for any symbol) due to its function-specific focus, though it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., within a project).

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 such as explain_file or get_symbol_detail. There are no examples, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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