tandem_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It discloses that history is immutable, validity and resolution are tracked separately, claimed fixes are not automatically verified, and updates require an expected revision. It does not cover every side effect or status transition, but the most important behavioral traps are surfaced.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The key invariant is front-loaded, and the following sentences deliver high-value operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable. The description covers the hardest domain rules around versioning and verification, but leaves list/create parameter selection and the roles of review_id and task_id to inference from the schema. For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, this is minimally viable but not complete.

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 must compensate for 11 undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for expected_revision, finding_id, conversation_id, number, evidence, and verification_task_id, but leaves action, change, finding, task_id, review_id, limit, and offset largely unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient for a schema of this size.

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 resource ('version-bound review findings') and a governing behavior ('without rewriting their history'), which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear and distinguishes it from the other tandem_* siblings. It does not explicitly enumerate the create/update/get/list actions from the schema, but the core purpose is still identifiable.

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 concrete operational guidance for suboperations: update requires current expected_revision, get uses finding_id or conversation_id plus human number, and verify_fixed needs evidence and a completed verification task. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over a sibling such as tandem_review or tandem_result, so cross-tool usage guidance remains implicit.

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