inkog_explain_finding

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return content (explanation, remediation, code examples) but does not mention limitations like what happens if finding ID is invalid or pattern unrecognized. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines tool's function and content, second provides usage timing. No superfluous words; efficient 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?

Tool has two optional parameters and no output schema. Description covers tool's purpose and return content adequately. Could hint at behavior when both parameters are provided vs. one, but overall complete for a simple lookup tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond schema; it mentions 'finding or pattern' but schema already describes parameters. No added constraints or usage hints.

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 detailed explanation and remediation guidance for security findings/patterns, listing specific content (issue, danger, fixes, code examples). It distinguishes from sibling scanning tools by advising use 'after scanning.'

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 says 'Use this after scanning to understand how to fix security findings,' providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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