preview_finding_remediation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior, describes the structured diff output, and gives an example for one finding kind. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects. Almost complete, missing minor details but not contradictory.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-line summary, then provides details on usage, behavior, and error cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and error codes. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the server_version parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (finding_id described, server_version not). Description adds context about the diff shape depending on finding kind, but does not explain server_version. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions, but could be more explicit about the server_version purpose.

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 tool's purpose: 'Preview what the platform would do to remediate a finding.' It specifies the resource (finding), the action (preview), and distinguishes it from the sibling `apply_finding_remediation` by noting it returns a diff without applying changes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this BEFORE apply_finding_remediation to show the operator exactly what cleanup will happen, and get explicit confirmation before committing.' Also documents error responses (404, 422) which guide usage.

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