diff --git a/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/tryceratops/rules/try_consider_else.rs b/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/tryceratops/rules/try_consider_else.rs
index 65699ca682491..59eb1902ced69 100644
--- a/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/tryceratops/rules/try_consider_else.rs
+++ b/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/tryceratops/rules/try_consider_else.rs
@@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ use crate::checkers::ast::Checker;
 /// ## Why is this bad?
 /// The `try`-`except` statement has an `else` clause for code that should
 /// run _only_ if no exceptions were raised. Using the `else` clause is more
-/// explicit than using a `return` statement inside of a `try` block.
+/// explicit than using a `return` statement inside of a `try` block. In general,
+/// it is better to only have code which you expect could throw an exception inside
+/// a `try` block to avoid accidentally catching something you didn't expect.
 ///
 /// ## Example
 /// ```python