explain_effect_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape and 'explain' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether there are additional constraints, failure modes, or formatting behaviors.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and then states the expected output. There is no wasted text and it does not repeat schema content.

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 two-parameter read-style tool, the output is described, but the terms 'effect row' and 'canonical row' are used without any definition. Since there is no output schema, a little more context about what an effect row contains would reduce ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the file and fn_name parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the target resource, 'a function's effect row', and states that it produces both the canonical row and a human-readable explanation of each effect. It is specific about the artifact and output, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling explain/render tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as explain_actor_protocol or render_ir_fragment. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'explain'.

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