cyntrisec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns a list of findings with default limits, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens with invalid inputs, or if there are rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with mutation potential (implied by 'Get' but unclear context).

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a standard format. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description should still address when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of all three parameters: 'severity' for filtering, 'max_findings' for limiting results with a default, and 'snapshot_id' for optional snapshot selection. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail on parameter interactions.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('security findings from the scan'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_scan_summary' or 'explain_finding', which could provide similar or related security information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_scan_summary' for overviews or 'explain_finding' for detailed explanations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an active scan or session.

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