veto_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful routing behavior (files go to the coder specialist, text to the debugger specialist), but it never mentions the two-phase agentic loop implied by the agent_response parameter, which is a notable behavioral trait left undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the mode-selection rule. No filler, though the second sentence slightly duplicates the schema's own routing note.

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?

For a five-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the primary entry modes and their consequences. The one omission is the multi-turn agentic loop around agent_response, whose behavior is only explained in the schema rather than the description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the debugger routing note. The description reinforces the file_path/text distinction and its specialist consequence, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema properties already state.

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 (Explains) and resource (a file or raw text) and immediately names the two input modes. It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like veto_rca or veto_summarize that also produce explanations.

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?

Explicitly says when to pass file_path (source file) versus text (error message, stack trace, compiler output), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead or stating when this tool should not be used.

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