explain_finding

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the output (plain-English meaning, why it matters, fix, developer line), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for unknown types, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the enumerated output content are front-loaded, and the routing hint is appropriately placed second.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the important work of specifying what the explanation contains and where valid type values come from. It is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool; only failure/edge behavior for an unrecognized type is unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and 3 would be the baseline. The description adds value by telling the agent where the `type` value comes from (list_findings), which is provenance information not present in the schema.

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 resource (one EverThread finding type) and enumerates the four things the explanation covers: meaning, importance, fix, developer line. It also routes the agent to list_findings for valid type names, which separates it from its siblings.

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 explicitly says to use list_findings for the type names, giving a clear pre-requisite and a sibling routing. It doesn't state when not to use the tool (e.g., for bulk explanation of many findings), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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