fabric_explain_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('Explain code') without revealing any behavioral traits such as input format expectations, output structure, language support, or whether the operation is read-only or potentially time-consuming. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 consists of one short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and structurally clean.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, but the description is incomplete for an agent. It lacks any indication of the return value or output format, and without an output schema or annotations, the agent cannot anticipate the result of calling the tool. The description also offers no usage context or constraints.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, describing it as 'The input text to process'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses the specific verb 'explain' with a clear resource ('code') and adds the qualifier 'in simple terms', which provides some scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fabric_summarize or fabric_improve_writing, lacking any mention of the specific output style or context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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