Explain a finding in depth

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing what the explanation covers (weakness, remediation steps, references), which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output, with no superfluous information.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, inputs, and output quality. No additional details about return values are needed.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; both parameters (scan_id, finding_id) are described with constraints and descriptions. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 returns a deep explanation and remediation plan for a single finding from a prior scan, specifying the content (weakness, importance, fix steps, references). It is distinct from siblings like codeinspectus_scan or codeinspectus_list_rules.

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 indicates use when a specific finding id from a prior scan needs explanation. It implicitly suggests prerequisites (having scan results) but does not explicitly list cases to avoid or alternatives. Siblings are differentiated by tool name and purpose.

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