explain_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation behavior. The description adds that the tool provides 'impact and remediation', which gives extra context about the output. No additional behavioral traits (like auth needs or rate limits) are disclosed, but the annotations suffice for basic safety.

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 that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief, which slightly reduces informational density.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of what the tool returns beyond 'impact and remediation'. The output format is not described, which could lead to confusion. The annotations cover safety but not completeness of return data.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the structured data already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not repeat parameter details, but it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'explain' and the resource 'a finding', and adds 'with impact and remediation' to specify the output. It distinguishes from sibling check tools which perform scans, not explanations. However, it could be more specific about the type of explanation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use. The sibling tools include many check tools, but no comparative context is given.

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