Explain a finding and get its exact fix

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns and implies it is an explanatory, non-applying step, but it never explicitly states whether the tool has side effects, modifies state, or requires special permissions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 with no fluff: the first front-loads the tool's function and outputs, the second gives direct workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and the shape of its answer, but does not explain how to construct arguments for a specific finding. Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions and the tool has three parameters, this is a significant completeness gap despite the strong high-level explanation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters beyond the bare name 'check_id.' It does not clarify how to reference a finding from scan_terraform, why title and resource_address are optional, or how they should be populated, so an agent is left to guess the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full remediation for one finding from scan_terraform'), and enumerates the return content: what is wrong, the exact Terraform fix, and whether it is safe to apply mechanically. This is precise and distinguishes the tool from siblings like scan_terraform (which finds findings) and apply_fixes (which applies 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 description explicitly says 'Call this for every finding you intend to fix instead of guessing the fix yourself,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction and warning against an alternative behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name sibling alternatives like apply_fixes, but the core usage context is strong.

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