list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation applies to the latest scan, path defaults to the most recently scanned project, limit is capped at 100, and offset/limit control pagination. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone convey.

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 compact and to the point. The one-line summary is front-loaded, followed by an Args block that is easy to scan. Every line adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and six optional parameters, the description covers all invocation-critical details such as defaults, pagination, and filter formats. It only lacks explicit sibling-tool routing and ordering/sorting behavior, but those are not essential for a correct call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. Every parameter is explained: severity enum values are listed, category gets examples, file is described as a substring, and offset/limit/path defaults are clarified. This compensates completely for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List findings from the latest scan, optionally filtered.' This is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_finding or scan_project, relying mostly on the tool name and list semantics to do that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_finding, scan_project, or generate_report. The mention of 'latest scan' and 'path defaults to the most recently scanned project' offers context but not active routing or exclusions. An agent would have to infer use cases from the name alone.

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