Return up to 50 severity-ranked, OS-specific removal suggestions from findings so users can review reversible options without changing files, processes, or settings.
Return up to 50 severity-ranked review suggestions from findings. Advice is reversible and OS-specific; this tool never removes files, stops processes or changes settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond annotations: advice is reversible and OS-specific, and the tool explicitly never removes files, stops processes, or changes settings. This reinforces the non-destructive safety profile and sets clear expectations.
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 purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important safety caveat, with no wasted text.
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 usefully states the output is up to 50 severity-ranked suggestions and clarifies non-destructive behavior. The main gap is the unexplained snapshot_id parameter.
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% and the description never explains snapshot_id. It says suggestions come 'from findings' but does not clarify that snapshot_id selects the snapshot whose findings are used, leaving the only parameter semantically underspecified.
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 states a specific verb and output: return up to 50 severity-ranked review suggestions from findings. It clearly conveys a suggestion-generation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list_findings.
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 phrase 'from findings' implies this is used after findings exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as list_findings. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.