vulnerability_scanner__get_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (title, description, remediation recommendation per finding), which is real added context, but says nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, or result scoping by scanId vs brandId.

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 with no filler, and the core retrieval intent is front-loaded ahead of the return-field detail. Efficient, though the second sentence could be trimmed since no output schema exists to justify it fully.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: no output schema exists, yet it only partially characterizes the return shape, and it omits pagination behavior despite page/pageSize parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the severity enum, page, and pageSize bounds. The description's mention of the severity filter adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (vulnerability findings from a GuardBee scan), which clearly separates it from sibling verbs like start_scan and list_scans. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must still infer the routing, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 notes an optional severity filter but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to list_scans or get_scan_status, and no prerequisite that a scanId typically originates from start_scan. Usage is only implied by 'from a GuardBee scan'.

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