get_remediation_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses the None-guidance edge case, the wrapping-vs-unwrapping behavior relative to get_issue, and the output being markdown. It does not state read-only/permission characteristics, but 'Get' plus the output schema mitigate that gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then edge cases and disambiguation. Three compact sentences with no filler, though the wrapping/unwrapping sentence is slightly convoluted and could be tightened.

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?

For a single-param read tool with an output schema, the description supplies the sourcing of the key parameter, the empty-result edge case, and alternative-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single required param, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that rule_name matches the value shown on issues and points to get_issue for sourcing it, adding genuine meaning beyond the bare 'Rule Name' title.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rule-level remediation guidance markdown for a rule name'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with get_finding_detail and get_issue. An agent can immediately tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing: it names the fallback (get_finding_detail) for rules without docs, and explains that get_issue returns the same docs unwrapped for browsing. This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement.

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