preview_finding_remediation

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

Discloses read-only nature, returns structured diff, explains that shape depends on finding kind with example (kind=structural_duplicate_controls), and specifies error conditions (404, 422). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, subsequent sentences add necessary detail. No redundant information. Approximately 6 sentences, each earning its place.

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?

Covers behavior, error conditions, and example output shape for a specific kind. Has output schema, so return values are documented there. Very good completeness; could mention that the tool is safe to call repeatedly but not necessary.

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?

Two parameters: finding_id and server_version. Schema covers finding_id with description, server_version lacks description (50% coverage). Description adds context about diff shape depending on finding kind, which relates to finding_id, but does not elaborate on server_version. Not enough to fully compensate for the missing parameter description.

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?

Clearly states action 'Preview' and resource 'what the platform would do to remediate a finding'. Distinguishes from sibling 'apply_finding_remediation' by explicitly mentioning it.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this BEFORE apply_finding_remediation to show the operator exactly what cleanup will happen, and get explicit confirmation before committing.' Implicitly advises not to use it if you want to apply directly. No explicit alternatives beyond the paired tool.

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