ai-tools__explain_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the core behavior—providing a detailed explanation of code—but does not disclose output format, code-handling implications, limitations, or whether the operation is purely analytical in an explicit way.

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 concise sentence with no filler, though the 'AI Code Analysis' prefix is somewhat redundant given the sibling context. It is efficiently front-loaded but not maximally informative.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, the description provides no guidance on tool selection relative to review_code and analyze_project, and does not describe what kind of explanation is returned.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond labeling the input as code, which matches the schema's 'Target code'.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: it explains the provided code. It distinguishes itself from fix/edit/test siblings, though it does not explicitly separate it from review_code, which could also involve analyzing 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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer explain_code over review_code, analyze_project, or the other code-related siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name and the generic description.

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