reverse_list_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only adds that findings are 'persisted' and that the operation is a list. It does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, ordering, state expectations, or whether live analysis results are included. Some useful context is present, but it is minimal.

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 front-loaded with the action, containing no filler. However, it is under-sized for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, so brevity comes at the cost of useful operational detail.

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 is too sparse to fully support correct invocation: it does not explain what a 'finding' is, how subject_id and subject_type alter the result, or how this tool relates to the replay and signature-candidate sibling tools. The output schema may cover return structure, but the invocation contract is still under-specified.

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 exposes subject_id and subject_type with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. An agent cannot infer how these parameters filter findings, what values are valid, or whether they are required. This is a significant gap given 0% schema description 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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('persisted findings'), and scopes the tool to 'replay or signature-candidate analysis.' This makes the tool's place in the family reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from other analysis-related list/query siblings.

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 replay or signature-candidate analysis' implies this is the read-back step after those analyses have run, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The large sibling list includes several analysis and query tools, and the description does not route the agent between them.

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