explain_violation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns (explanation, framework mapping, remediation) but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a read tool, more context on output format or limitations is needed.

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 a single concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the key action. It contains no wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by incorporating the parameter or using structured text, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not clarify what 'framework mapping' or 'remediation' entails, nor the output structure. The agent lacks sufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior without calling it.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter violation_id. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain format, source, or expected values. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone.

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 a 'Plain-English explanation of one violation with framework mapping and remediation.' It specifies the verb 'explain', the resource 'violation', and details the content. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_violations (list) and get_compliance_risk_summary (summary).

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 implies use for detailed explanation of a single violation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_violations or get_compliance_risk_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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