explain-dcr

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 gives no indication of whether this tool performs side effects, requires prior setup, produces a cached vs. live explanation, or has any cost/rate behaviors. The description is silent on all behavioral characteristics.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a tool that takes no parameters and performs a conceptually simple action.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns or produces. It simply states the action without describing the output format, whether it's textual, and what DCR specifically means in this server context. Compared to sibling tools that are clearly profile-data getters, this one's role is underspecified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. The baseline of 4 for a zero-param tool applies, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 names a specific action ('Explain how this server applies Dynamic Context Retrieval') but it's unclear what the actual output would be — is this a static explanation, a live trace, or a diagnostic? The verb 'explain' is vague about the deliverable. It references a specific profile (Priya Gautam) which gives some specificity, but the tool's real function remains ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings like search-priya-profile or get-profile. It doesn't clarify whether this is a diagnostic/metadata tool, an education tool, or something to call during reasoning. The context where this would be useful is entirely unstated.

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