explain_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes non-destructive analytical behavior: showing scoring breakdowns, context sufficiency, and swaps. No side effects mentioned, but it's clearly a read-only analysis tool. Could state it doesn't modify state, but the description is sufficient.

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?

Four sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second lists dimensions, third adds sufficiency and swaps, fourth gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description details the output contents (scoring breakdowns, sufficiency, swaps), making the tool's behavior clear.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% and description adds no param info. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining what output the tool produces, which compensates for lack of parameters.

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 it explains inclusion/exclusion of fragments from the last optimization, listing specific scoring dimensions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'optimize_context' (the preceding step) and 'explain_receipt_omission' (likely about receipts). Verb+resource+scope are precise.

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 'Call this after optimize_context to understand selection decisions,' providing clear context. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but given the sibling set, this is sufficient guidance for the intended workflow.

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