server_explain

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns fix tier and compliance references, and supports fuzzy matching. No contradictions. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second details content, third adds useful details (no SSH, matching). Every sentence adds value. No fluff, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter), rich annotations, and existence of output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, returned data, and special features (fuzzy matching, no SSH). No gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully described in schema. Description reiterates case-insensitive and fuzzy matching (already in schema) and adds no new parameter-specific semantics. 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?

Description clearly states it provides a deep-dive explanation of an audit check, enumerating specific return fields (what it does, why it matters, how to fix, fix tier, compliance references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like server_audit (runs audit) and server_fix (applies fix) by focusing on explanation.

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?

Description implies when to use: to get detailed explanation of an audit check. It mentions no SSH required, which is a helpful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, though the distinguishing purpose is clear.

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