explain_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does communicate that the tool is a read-only explanation operation and summarizes the output content. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, possible errors, or response structure, but for an information-retrieval tool this is acceptable though not rich.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get a detailed explanation') and immediately states the key output components. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity explainer tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected return content, while the schema covers parameters. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this relative to the sibling analysis and detection tools, but that is not critical for basic invocation.

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 schema already provides descriptions for finding_description and codebase_context, and the enum documents finding_type. The description adds little to parameter understanding beyond framing the finding as 'specific.' With 67% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also does not enrich the parameters.

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 gets a detailed explanation of a specific code health finding and enumerates the content of that explanation (why it matters, risks, remediation). It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling detection/analysis tools, but it does not explicitly name them or contrast itself with them.

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 usage context is implied: the agent should use this tool when it has a specific finding to explain, likely after running one of the detection or analysis tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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