mimry_why

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only inspection, whether it requires a prior index/reindex, whether results are deterministic, or what the explanation contains. 'Explain' implies a read, but nothing is confirmed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity costs needed detail instead of trimming filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is not required, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and an undefined required 'surface' argument, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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% across 4 parameters, including the required 'surface' and 'query'. The description loosely maps 'file or symbol' and 'task query' onto two of them, but 'surface', 'root', and 'limit' are left entirely undefined and their formats are unguessable.

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 verb ('Explain') and a resource ('why a file or symbol ranked for a task query'), which is more than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like mimry_explain, mimry_find, or mimry_route. An agent cannot tell from this text alone which of those to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives, despite the tool sitting in a cluster of overlapping read/explain siblings. The agent must infer the triggering context entirely.

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