Open Kioku Explain Verification

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing the output content (decision, failures, warnings, etc.), which goes beyond annotations and informs the agent about the tool's behavioral output.

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 sentences: first states purpose and output components, second provides usage context and safety note. Every sentence is valuable, front-loaded with main purpose, no waste.

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 3 parameters (0 required), 100% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description effectively complements these by detailing expected output components and usage context. Complete for a tool that consumes a specific report and produces an explanation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'verification report' but doesn't elaborate on parameter specifics.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'explain' and the resource 'contract verification report', listing specific included components (decision, boundary failures, warnings, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_change_contract (which produces the report) and explain_file/explain_symbol (which serve different purposes).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after verify_change_contract', giving clear workflow context. Declares the tool read-only. Does not specify exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for proper usage.

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