triage

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (verdict, dup-likelihood, adjusted severity, and SAFE negative control) and indicates the control is to be run by the caller, not the tool itself. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the wording strongly implies analysis-only behavior.

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 sentences plus an Args line cover purpose, return values, and parameter semantics without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word 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?

Given the simplicity (one param) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and what the input should be, with no unresolved gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully describes the only parameter 'finding_json' as 'a single finding object as JSON', providing both format and meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. This is exactly what the agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb 'triage' targeting 'ONE finding' and clarifies the evaluation criteria (real, exploitable, non-duplicate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hunt' or 'review_file' by focusing on verdict and severity adjustment.

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 provides clear context that this is for single-finding adversarial triage and mentions the SAFE negative control to run, implying follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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