explain_issue

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

The description reinforces the annotations by stating 'Read-only POST to /ai/explain — never mutates DNS or domain state,' consistent with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false. It also discloses that it is an AI service and details the return content (severity, business impact, root cause, fix steps), adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. While it doesn't discuss latency or errors, those are not critical.

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 compact yet comprehensive, delivered in four sentences that sequentially cover purpose, output, safety, parameters, and usage guidelines. There is no redundancy or filler; each sentence earns 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params, one nested object, enum), the description provides sufficient completeness: it describes what is returned, how to invoke it correctly, when to use it, and how to enhance results with context. It also clarifies the relationship to sibling tools, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 description instructs to 'Provide domain and issue (enum); pass context from prior scan output (e.g. scan_domain result) for higher-quality answers,' which adds usage guidance beyond the schema. Schema descriptions for domain and context are clear, but the description explains how to obtain context and its benefit, enriching parameter semantics.

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 (ask for a plain-language explanation), the target (one specific issue with examples like spf_missing, no_dnssec), and the output (severity, impact, root cause, fix steps). It also differentiates from generate_dns_fix by noting that tool provides the actual fix snippet, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use after scan_domain when an agent needs to walk a user through *why* a finding matters; use generate_dns_fix for the actual DNS record snippet that resolves it.' This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives, along with the recommendation to pass context from prior scans for better answers.

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