icf_explain_qualifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains behavior: returns an explanation based on component and optional qualifier. It notes that omitting qualifier shows all qualifiers. No side effects are expected for a read-only info tool. It does not specify error handling for invalid inputs, but transparency is adequate given the simple nature.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states purpose, followed by a clear list of qualifier types per component. No redundant or unnecessary sentences. Every line adds value.

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's complexity (2 params, no required, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers all necessary details: what the tool does, the components, qualifier behavior, and return value. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: component with explicit values ('generic','b','s','d','e') and their meaning, and qualifier as optional with behavior 'shows all qualifiers' vs 'explains specific value'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Explain ICF qualifier systems.' It specifies the resource (ICF qualifier systems) and the action (explain). The qualifier types per component are listed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like icf_lookup or icf_parse_qualified_code.

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 explains the tool's use: explaining qualifier systems per component. It implicitly guides when to use it (when understanding the qualifier structure is needed) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives. The context from sibling tools makes the distinction clear, earning a 4.

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