flag_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the flag is sent to a review team and may result in a scanner rule update, implying the action is not a direct or immediate status change. This provides useful side-effect context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and target, the second explains the follow-up process. No redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded.

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 tool is relatively simple with no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the workflow (flag, review, potential rule update). It lacks any explicit mention of immediate changes to the finding's status or possible error outcomes, but these are not critical for a flagging tool. Overall coverage is solid.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Flag a specific finding') with a specific resource ('in an audit') and purpose ('as a false positive'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_findings and get_fix_plan by focusing on the flagging workflow.

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 intended usage is implied: use this to report a false positive. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for confirmed findings'). The context is present but not explicit.

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