Explains supplied source code, letting users focus on specific symbols, lines, or topics for targeted clarification.
Explain supplied source code with optional symbol, line, and topic focus
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Code | |
| model | No | Model | |
| language | No | Language | |
| focus_lines | No | Focus lines | |
| detail_level | No | Detail level | |
| focus_topics | No | Focus topics | |
| focus_symbols | No | Focus symbols | |
| output_format | No | Output format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'explain' with no disclosure of side effects, return format, or any behavioral nuances. There is no mention of what happens to the input or what the output looks like, which is critical for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Explain supplied source code') and immediately mentioning the optional focus areas. There is no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient.
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 the tool has 8 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to specify focus lines or topics, what detail levels are available, or how output_format behaves. An agent would lack essential information to call this tool correctly, making the description incomplete for a moderately complex tool.
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%, but the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Code', 'Model', 'Focus lines'). The main description adds value by clarifying the focus parameters (symbol, line, topic) which aligns with focus_symbols, focus_lines, and focus_topics. However, it does not explain parameter values, formats, or how they interact. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds some but not comprehensive context.
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 explains supplied source code, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional focus on symbols, lines, and topics, which distinguishes it from generic analysis tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them, so it loses a point for lack of direct differentiation.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coeus_analyze or coeus_review_code. It doesn't state prerequisites, when to prefer this over others, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.