explain_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed explanation' and 'breaking down what each part does', but doesn't cover critical aspects like output format, length, whether it's interactive or batch, potential rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or output format.

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 complexity (code explanation with multiple parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured explanation, natural language text), doesn't mention limitations (e.g., code length constraints), and provides no context about when this tool is preferable to sibling alternatives.

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%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 with a specific verb ('explains') and resource ('code'), specifying it provides detailed explanations breaking down each part. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reflect_on_code' or 'debug_problem' that might also analyze code, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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. With many sibling tools for code analysis (e.g., 'debug_problem', 'reflect_on_code', 'analyze_architecture'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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