explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool requests from 'Codex CLI(GPT-5.4)', implying an external call, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether code is transmitted externally, what side effects might occur, or the response format. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond a simple explanation request.

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, focused sentence followed by a terse bullet list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every line provides necessary information without redundancy. The structure is clean and easy to parse, achieving maximum clarity with minimal words.

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 simple tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks any guidance on usage context, and given the absence of annotations, it does not disclose behavioral aspects like side-effect safety or external service invocation details. The description is adequate but leaves clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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 no property descriptions (schema coverage 0%), but the description's Args section explicitly defines each parameter: code as 'the code to explain', language as 'programming language', and detail_level as 'detail level (brief/medium/detailed)'. It adds meaning to all three parameters and even enumerates valid value options for detail_level, which the schema does not provide. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantics.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Codex CLI(GPT-5.4)にコードの解説・分析を依頼' (request code explanation/analysis from Codex CLI). This names a specific action (request explanation/analysis) and a resource (Codex CLI), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute, generate, or review. The purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use when you need to understand existing code' or note that execution tools should be used for running code. The only context is the tool's own purpose, with no exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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