reddit_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content ('definition, origin, usage, and examples'), which adds some context, but it does not cover important traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data sources. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return content, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to explain how the tool behaves and when to use it, but it meets the basic requirements for a simple lookup tool.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'term' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of terms or usage nuances. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get explanations of Reddit terms, slang, and culture.' It specifies the verb ('Get explanations') and resource ('Reddit terms, slang, and culture'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'user_analysis' or 'search_reddit', which might also involve Reddit terminology, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, such as when to prefer this over 'search_reddit' for term definitions or how it relates to other tools. Without such information, users must 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.