Explain Deluge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core non-destructive action and tone. However, it does not describe the output format, how the level parameter affects the explanation, or how invalid snippets are handled. For a read-only explanation tool, the basic behavior is identifiable, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It is concise without being bloated, though the brevity does come at the cost of parameter and behavior details. As a concise purpose statement it earns a solid score.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only covers high-level purpose. It omits parameter semantics, output behavior, and routing relative to sibling tools, so an agent cannot reliably decide whether to set `level` or what response to expect. This is minimally enough to identify the tool but not enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the `code` or `level` parameters by name. 'Snippet' implies the `code` input, yet nothing explains that `level` accepts beginner or intermediate and how it changes the response. This leaves the optional parameter almost entirely undocumented from a semantic standpoint.

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 action (explain) and object (Deluge snippet) with a clear audience/tone (beginner-friendly). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deluge_validate, deluge_fix, and deluge_examples at a high level, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrasting scenarios. The phrase 'beginner-friendly' slightly narrows the purpose given that the level parameter also supports intermediate.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the task is to explain a Deluge snippet in accessible language. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as deluge_fix or deluge_validate. This is clear context without exclusions, but not the stronger sibling-routing guidance seen in better descriptions.

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