explain_process

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/offline, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value the annotations don't: the data sources it reasons over, the default-to-latest-snapshot behavior, and the important caveat that 'name matches alone never establish identity' — warning the agent against over-trusting the output.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then snapshot usage, then the identity caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the third sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: where the data comes from, how snapshot selection works, and how to interpret name-based results. It doesn't describe return shape, but as an 'explain' tool the content is largely implied.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'name' is qualified as an *exact* process name (with the identity caveat), and snapshot_id's default semantics ('omit for latest') are spelled out. Coverage is nearly complete for a 2-param tool.

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 a precise resource ('an exact process name'), and enumerates the evidence sources it draws on (saved facts, local rule matches, sourced offline context). This clearly separates it from the list_*/scan siblings, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

'Omit snapshot_id for the latest snapshot' gives concrete usage for one parameter, and 'Compare documented location and publisher expectations' hints at the intended analysis. However, it never states when to prefer this over compare_to_peers or list_findings, so selection guidance is only implied.

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