explain_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral fact — it only *suggests* a correction rather than applying one, distinguishing it from fix_solidity — but says nothing about whether it requires a config, a network lookup, or how the explanation is returned.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the secondary capability following it. Zero filler.

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 one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about what comes back (explanation text only? code sample? suggested replacement?) and whether an unknown rule errors.

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% for the single ruleId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about rule ID format or lookup behavior, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (explain) and resource (a known Solhint rule), plus a second capability (suggest a correction). This clearly separates it from the lint_* and fix_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'known' faintly implies the rule ID must be valid, but there is no statement about when to reach for this instead of lint_solidity, fix_solidity, or get_config, leaving routing to inference.

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