explain_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'No network call' as extra behavioral context beyond annotations, confirming it is a client-side operation. 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?

Two sentences pack significant information without excess. First sentence lists outputs concisely; second sentence provides sibling comparison. Efficient but slightly dense.

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 complexity of nested object input and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, scope, and differentiation. Missing details like output format are covered by output schema.

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 described in detail with field descriptions). The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 formats an inline audit issue object into developer-friendly guidance, listing specific outputs (WCAG explanation, user impact, code-level fix, reference links). It also distinguishes from the sibling `explain_finding` by noting this tool takes the issue literal directly rather than fetching by ID.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with `explain_finding`, stating that `explain_issue` takes an inline issue object and makes 'No network call'. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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