explain_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (shows matches and reasons) and a key limitation (without returning a quote), which is useful. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, mentions no side effects, and leaves the return format implicit, so some transparency gaps remain.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose and the second adding a practical use case. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the action, the subject, and a limitation, and it grounds the use case in 'keyword map' tuning. This is nearly complete, though the exact return structure (e.g., how topics and reasons are presented) is not specified, preventing a 5.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'task' with a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond echoing 'task description' in the first sentence, so it does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

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 what the tool does: it shows which topics a task description matches and why. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not return a quote, differentiating it from list_topics and motivate.

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 a clear use case ('useful for tuning the keyword map'), giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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