websex_finding_report

Does 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 implies a write/mutation but never discloses whether an existing finding is overwritten, what 'path' refers to, permission requirements, or side effects. Only the output schema partially covers the return.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

Given 8 params at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the input contract remains essentially undocumented.

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% across 8 parameters (7 required), so the description must compensate and does not. Ambiguous fields like 'path', 'target', 'severity', and 'evidence' are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their format and 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 (write) and resource (structured Markdown security finding) scoped to the engagement workspace, so an agent understands the action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related websex_workspace_write sibling, which could also write content.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never states prerequisites such as needing an existing engagement (engagement_id is required) or how this differs from websex_workspace_write for persisting content.

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