explain_finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool is read-only ('Get') and what kind of content the explanation includes, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response format, behavior for unrecognized finding types, or whether the explanation is precomputed or generated, so significant behavioral detail is still missing.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the added clauses about risks and remediation steps are concise and informative.

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?

The description is minimally adequate: schema coverage provides parameter names and the description explains the return content. However, there is no mention of how this tool fits into a workflow with the sibling analysis tools, and there is no output schema to clarify the exact structure of the explanation.

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 67%, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It never names finding_type, finding_description, or codebase_context, and it does not explain how the enum values relate to the requested explanation. The phrase 'specific finding' only weakly maps to the required parameters.

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 a specific action ('Get a detailed explanation') on a specific resource ('a specific code health finding') and outlines the content of the explanation (why it matters, risks, remediation). It is not a tautology, and the 'explain' framing distinguishes it from the sibling analysis/detection tools, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools like analyze_dead_code or full_health_scan. It does not state whether this tool should be used after a finding is reported, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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