Explain a finding in depth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the content of the explanation (weakness, importance, fix steps, references), which goes beyond 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 sentence that front-loads the main action and covers all essential aspects. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated as true), and the description covers what the output contains: explanation, remediation plan, weakness, importance, fix steps, references. With only two required parameters and all information provided, the description is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The tool description reinforces the purpose but does not add additional semantics like formatting or validation rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 full remediation plan for a single finding ID from a prior scan. It specifies the verb 'explain', the resource 'finding', and distinguishes from sibling tools like codeinspectus_scan (scanning) and codeinspectus_list_rules (listing 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 implies the tool should be used after a prior scan and for a single finding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other purposes, such as compliance reports or SBOM generation. The prerequisite is clear but exclusion criteria are absent.

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