FindCleanCoreViolations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return type (prioritized list) and pagination, but does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only, mention performance implications, or note any authentication requirements. As a scanning tool it is likely read-only, but this is not stated, and no limitations or error conditions are disclosed.

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 exactly two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination hint is succinct. It is efficiently sized and easy to parse.

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?

The description explains the output (prioritized list of violations with successor recommendations) and the scope (Z/Y custom objects). It does not explain the meaning of P1-P4 or the distinction between the two pagination systems, but the schema covers parameters. Given no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to understand the return type. It could be more complete by clarifying pagination options, but it is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about pagination using max_objects and start_index, but does not mention the alternative maxLines/startLine parameters or clarify the distinction between the two pagination mechanisms. The description provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 action (scan) on a defined resource (Z/Y custom objects) targeting a particular condition (usages of unreleased/deprecated CDS views) and returns a prioritized list with recommendations. This clearly differentiates it from sibling getter tools like GetCDSView or CheckReleaseState.

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 gives a concrete usage instruction: 'Use max_objects and start_index to paginate large systems.' It implies the tool is for scanning, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a scanning operation, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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