robot_explain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool computes explanations and describes modes, but does not disclose potential side effects, output format, or limitations. The description is partially adequate but incomplete.

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 concise with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for modes, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value.

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 16 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only the core purpose and a couple of parameters. Missing details on other parameters, return value, prerequisites, or how output is structured. An output schema exists but is not used to supplement.

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 0%, so the description is the only source. It explains the 'axiom' parameter with an example and mentions 'mode', but 16 parameters exist; most (reasoner, max, unsatisfiable, etc.) are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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 computes minimal axiom explanations for inferred statements, lists three modes, and provides an example of the axiom parameter syntax. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like robot_reason or robot_query.

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 explicitly says it is useful for debugging classification issues and outlines the three modes (entailment, inconsistency, unsatisfiability). While it implies when to use the tool, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives.

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