explain_self

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return is FACTS with source_ref and instructs the agent to relay them to the user, which is useful output behavior, but says nothing about permissions, whether it is read-only, or any constraints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the topic syntax list, though long, earns its place by compensating for the empty schema. Slightly dense but no wasteful sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers purpose, input syntax, and return content (facts with source_ref). Only the routing-vs-siblings guidance and permission profile are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter fully, and it does: it enumerates empty/overview, tool:<name>, rule:<N>, recipe:<id>, concept:moat|firewall|architecture|extend, term:<word>, and free text. This is exactly the syntax and value set the bare 'topic' string property lacks.

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?

States a specific verb (explain) and resource (the project itself / a tool, rule, concept, or term), with the sub-scope enumerated explicitly. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like catalog_list, retrieve, or cite without opening any schema.

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 topic taxonomy (overview | tool:<name> | rule:<N> | concept:... | term:<word>) clearly frames when this tool applies versus other lookups. It gives strong context but never names an alternative or states an exclusion, so it stops short of the top tier.

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