explain_findingExplains a security finding in plain language while preserving the honesty contract, helping users understand what was detected and why it matters.
Explain a finding in plain language, keeping the honesty contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| finding_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, whether it has side effects or costs, or what the "honesty contract" concretely guarantees. The only behavioral hint is that the output is in plain language.
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 short sentence with no wasted wording. However, the phrase "keeping the honesty contract" consumes space without adding actionable clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. Still, for a two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin: it omits parameter meanings, relationship to `get_finding`, and any behavioral constraints.
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 says nothing about the two required parameters. One parameter can be loosely inferred from "a finding," but `job_id` is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: "Explain a finding in plain language." It implies value beyond retrieving a raw finding, but does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling `get_finding` tool, and the phrase "honesty contract" is unexplained jargon.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `get_finding`, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that an agent should call it when a finding needs explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.