server_explain

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that no SSH connection is needed and describes matching behavior, which are useful behavioral details 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?

Two sentences concisely convey the core purpose and key behavioral aspects. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information('Deep-dive into a single audit check') is 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 availability of an output schema (describing return fields) and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return content, no SSH requirement, and matching behavior. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal new meaning. It restates case-insensitive and fuzzy matching, which the schema already includes. The description does not deepen parameter 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 it provides a deep-dive into a single audit check, detailing purpose, importance, fix instructions, tier, and compliance references. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like server_audit (listing checks) or server_fix (applying fixes).

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 mentions no SSH connection required and explains matching behavior (case-insensitive, fuzzy). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the context of 'single check' implies it's for detailed explanation after identification.

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