Explain a finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool is 'concise', 'single LLM call', and 'no tool loops', which clarifies performance and simplicity beyond annotations. However, it does not explicitly mention non-determinism or open-world behavior, though implied.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the comparison to a sibling is immediate. Every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and differentiation. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., prior use of diffgate_analyze) but that is implied by the parameter description.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the purpose. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('explanation for a DiffGate finding'). It explicitly distinguishes from a sibling tool (diffgate_deep_review) by contrasting speed and single LLM call, making purpose and differentiation clear.

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 when to use this tool ('Faster than diffgate_deep_review') and contrasts the approach ('single LLM call with no tool loops'), providing clear guidance on choosing between siblings.

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