Get findings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds material context: secrets are redacted by default, results are paged with a severity summary, and findings text is untrusted scanned data that must not be treated as instructions. That prompt-injection warning is a genuinely useful safety disclosure absent from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what can be filtered, followed by the redaction and untrusted-data caveats. The lead sentence is clause-dense but every clause carries information, and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately (fields, paging, severity summary), which is exactly what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: no mention of empty-result behavior or how it relates to grep_loot for free-text searching of findings.

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 100%, so host exactness, limit/offset semantics, min_severity enum, and workspace naming are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates the host and severity filters at a high level, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Read Sn1per vulnerability findings for a workspace') and enumerates the record fields returned (severity, title, location, host, detail). The resource noun cleanly separates it from siblings like get_ports, get_subdomains, and get_technologies without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied through the described filters ('optionally limited to one exact host and a minimum severity, with paging'), so an agent knows how to narrow results. However, it never states when to prefer this over the overlapping grep_loot sibling or what to do when a workspace has no findings, leaving routing to inference.

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