herdr_agent_explain

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion that it surfaces Herdr's internal classification logic, but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., must the agent be live/running?) or what form the explanation takes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse given the tool's diagnostic nature.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, yet it never indicates whether the result is a textual rationale, a state label with reasons, or structured fields. Annotations cover safety, so the gap is limited to output shape and prerequisites.

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%, with both 'target' and 'verbose' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about what 'target' accepts beyond the schema's 'live agent name or pane id' or what 'verbose' expands.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('an agent's current state' classification), so an agent can tell this is a diagnostic/explanation tool rather than a state-reading tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like herdr_agent_get or herdr_status by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of herdr_agent_get, herdr_agent_read, or herdr_status, all of which touch agent state. The agent must guess the boundary between 'explain the classification' and 'get the state'.

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