generate_remediation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates advice but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with findings data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of generating remediation advice, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, behavioral traits, or how it differs from other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'findingIds' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what constitutes a valid ID or how the advice is generated. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 action ('generate') and the resource ('actionable remediation advice for findings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_false_positives' or 'check_compliance', which might also involve findings remediation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'manage_false_positives' or 'check_compliance'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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