explain_defect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies this is an explanation (non-mutating), details the type of information returned, and documents the effect of omitting the key. It does not describe error handling or return structure, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second provides a distinct call mode. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, this description is sufficient. It states the purpose, the nature of its output, and a special usage mode. It could be enhanced by describing the response format, but the current description covers the essential context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must illuminate the 'key' parameter. It indicates that providing a key selects a specific defect class and that omitting it lists all defects, which gives meaningful usage context. However, it does not specify the expected format or domain of the key.

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 a specific verb ('explain') with a defined resource ('certificate defect class from the atlas taxonomy') and explicitly describes what the explanation covers ('why the forgery looks valid, and which check catches it'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_certificate.

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 clear context: this tool is for defect classes in the atlas taxonomy, and it documents the special behavior of calling with no key to list all defects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose statement gives enough context to infer appropriate usage.

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