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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key side-effect behavior (auto-close if GREEN) and the multi-step process, but does not elaborate on permissions, reversibility, or what happens if not GREEN. This is moderate transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word adds value, and it does not repeat schema details unnecessarily.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, the process, and the automatic closure behavior. It lacks detail on the return format, but that is not critical given the simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter finding_id, which already describes it as 'Finding ID to re-test'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Re-test' with a clear resource 'a finding' and outlines the process: collect fresh evidence, reassess check, auto-close if GREEN. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_finding or assess_all.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a finding needs re-testing with a closed-loop outcome. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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