Explain score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It characterizes the tool as 'Explain', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety, mention any required permissions, or specify behavior on invalid input (e.g., missing server). The description lacks behavioral depth.

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 extremely brief at two sentences, with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place, making it ideal for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., a score breakdown, textual explanation) or how errors are handled (e.g., server not found). Users would need to guess the output format or rely on external documentation.

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 sole parameter 'name' is described only by schema (type string, minLength 1). The description adds an example ('io.github.khalidsaidi/ragmap'), which clarifies the expected format but does not cover other possible naming conventions or validation rules. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the example provides helpful but incomplete guidance.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Explain' and the resource 'RAGMap scoring for a server', making the purpose clear. It also provides an example of the expected registry server name. However, it does not elaborate on what the 'explanation' entails (e.g., breakdown of scoring factors), which slightly reduces specificity.

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 suggests using a registry server name and gives an example, but it does not compare this tool to its siblings (e.g., rag_get_server, rag_find_servers). No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's purpose alone.

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