explain_violation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'provide[s] root-cause analysis and step-by-step remediation guidance,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics, permissions, or output format. For a simple explanation tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes: the first states what it does, the second explains how to invoke it. This is an ideal size.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with all parameters documented and no output schema. The description gives enough context about when and how to use it, and the mention of 'root-cause analysis and step-by-step remediation guidance' implies the return content. It does not describe edge cases or required permissions, but these are not critical for this tool.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the input flexibility: 'Pass the full violation object or just the ruleId and file path,' which clarifies that ruleId and filePath are sufficient and that the full object is optional—information not present in the schema itself.

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's function: 'Given a SARIF violation from a scan, provide root-cause analysis and step-by-step remediation guidance.' It uses a specific verb ('provide') and resource ('SARIF violation') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_agentforce or suggest_fix by focusing on analysis and remediation, not detection or fixing.

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 clear context for usage: it applies when a SARIF violation from a scan is available, and it explains the two input modes ('Pass the full violation object or just the ruleId and file path'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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