explain_remediation

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

The description discloses the output content (risk assessment, exploit scenario, etc.) and mentions optional context-aware guidance. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only.

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 plus an example, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and optional parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure. It lists the components of the explanation and covers input parameters. However, it does not address error handling or behavior for invalid rule IDs, which would improve completeness.

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 already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of rule_id and code in context, and provides an example, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 provides a detailed explanation for a GuardVibe rule ID, listing specific components like risk assessment and exploit scenario. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on explanation rather than planning 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 indicates when to use the tool (for rule ID explanations) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools like remediation_plan or fix_code.

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