explain_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that it is 'offline' and enumerates the returned artifacts (evidence, remediation, verification command), which is useful since no output schema exists. It doesn't cover the no-match or ambiguity case (e.g., what happens when a rule id matches multiple findings).

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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary purpose and the selection criterion are both 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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden and handles it by naming the three artifacts returned. It remains silent on failure modes (unknown fingerprint, rule id with no match) and whether results are truncated, which leaves a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the 'highest-severity match' behavior for ruleId. The description only reinforces the fingerprint/ruleId selection axis and adds nothing the schema lacks, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (return), resource (evidence, remediation guidance, verification command for one finding), and selector (fingerprint or rule id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools audit_codebase and verify_changes, which perform audits rather than explain a single result.

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 selection mechanism ('by fingerprint or rule id') and the provenance of the input ('from a prior JSON report' per the schema) make the intended usage clear. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with audit_codebase or verify_changes or states when *not* to use it.

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