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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: attacks run against a live target, the test:run scope is required, results are asynchronous ('validating'), and 'still_broken' can mean the re-run could not confirm the fix. These details materially affect safe invocation of a destructive/open-world operation.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the action, the second enumerates verdicts and the polling fallback. Every clause adds operational value with no repetition.

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?

Covers action, preconditions, auth scope, possible outcomes, and async polling. Although an output schema exists, the verdict enumeration is useful because it tells the agent how to interpret and act on results.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description implies finding_id identifies the finding whose attacks are re-run. However, it does not define the expected ID format or otherwise enrich the parameter beyond its obvious meaning.

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 and resource: re-run a finding's attacks against the live target to confirm a fix. The verdict list makes the outcome unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_finding or close_finding.

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?

Provides clear context: use after marking a finding fixed, and re-read status with get_finding while validating. It does describe prerequisites, but does not explicitly name close_finding or other alternatives and when not to use this tool.

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