Review Stale False Positives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining what constitutes 'stale' (current scanner finding no longer exists), which is beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and annotations provide safety info, the description fully covers what the tool does. It is complete and accurate for a simple read-only query.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly omits any param-related information.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'ignored false-positive suppressions whose current scanner finding no longer exists.' This distinguishes it from siblings like memory.review_false_positives and memory.false_positive_ignore, which handle other aspects of false positives.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the specificity of 'stale false positives' implies its use for cleanup after scans. It provides clear context for when to use it, but lacks explicit direction such as 'use after scanning to remove unneeded suppressions.'

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