explain_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description tells the agent to prefer sessionId but doesn't disclose what happens when findingCode is missing, whether it requires prior review_project context, or what the explanation format/return looks like. It adds 'mentor-style' framing but no operational behavior details.

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?

One short sentence plus a preference directive. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could arguably be slightly more informative about behavior, but as written it's appropriately brief with no wasted words.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It establishes parameter priority but doesn't clarify when a findingCode is required, what happens without a sessionId, or what the mentor-style explanation entails. Given the low complexity (single finding, simple tool), this is minimally sufficient but with room to add behavioral context.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning by establishing the preference hierarchy: sessionId is preferred over path. It contextualizes sessionId as coming from review_project and path as a rescans fallback, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. findingCode and findingId benefit from this context.

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?

'Mentor-style explanation for one finding' clearly states a specific verb (explain) and resource (one finding). It distinguishes from siblings like explore_finding and explain_widget by specifying 'one finding' and mentor-style tone, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar explore_finding sibling.

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?

'Prefer sessionId from review_project' gives clear usage context for when/how to invoke, and the schema distinguishes sessionId as preferred over the path fallback. It notes path is a fallback for rescans, which orients the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it.

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