explain_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns an explanation; it does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires special permissions, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal in behavioral terms.

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 relatively concise, but it uses a docstring format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that add some verbosity. The core information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is structured. It could be slightly more compact.

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 tool with only two parameters, the description covers the return values (context, impact, remediation steps). However, since an output schema exists but is not shown, the description is somewhat incomplete about the exact structure of the response. Still, it provides adequate context for selection.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear meaning for both parameters: finding_id ('The finding ID to explain') and snapshot_id ('Optional snapshot ID (default: latest)'). This adds value beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 retrieves a detailed explanation of a security finding. It uses a specific verb ('Get detailed explanation') and identifies the resource ('security finding'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_findings (which lists findings) and explain_path (which explains attack paths).

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 usage when a user wants an explanation for a specific finding, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_findings or explain_path. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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