explain_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavior. It states the tool is 'read-only POST to /ai/explain — never mutates DNS or domain state', which gives clear safety assurances. It does not fully address rate limits or authentication, but the disclosure of non-mutating behavior is sufficient for safe usage.

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 concise sentences effectively front-load the core purpose and then provide actionable usage details. 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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description explains input usage, hints at output format, and situates the tool within a workflow (after scan_domain, before generate_dns_fix). It is fully self-contained for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that `context` should come from prior scan output for better results, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional issue context'. It also reiterates that `issue` is an enum, though this is already 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?

The description clearly states the tool uses AI to explain a specific issue, listing the output fields (severity, business impact, root cause, recommended fix steps). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_dns_fix by noting that this tool explains 'why' a finding matters, while the sibling provides the actual fix snippet.

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 the tool ('after scan_domain when an agent needs to walk a user through why a finding matters') and when not to ('use generate_dns_fix for the actual DNS record snippet that resolves it'). Also advises passing `context` from prior scan output for higher-quality answers, providing clear guidance on tool invocation.

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