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 burden; it usefully discloses what each finding contains (title, description, remediation recommendation), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or what happens when no scanId/brandId is supplied.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return content. No filler, though the second sentence could arguably be part of an output description rather than the purpose statement.

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?

Describing return fields is valuable given there is no output schema. However, with five parameters and zero required, the description should clarify that calling it with no scanId/brandId returns unfiltered findings across scans — a meaningful behavioral question left unaddressed.

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 all five parameters are already documented including the severity enum. The description only restates the severity filter already present in the schema and adds no semantics beyond it.

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 and resource ('Get vulnerability findings from a GuardBee scan') and names the severity filter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like vulnerability_scanner__list_scans and get_scan_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. list_scans, get_scan_status, or scan_and_report, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a scan must exist first). The phrase 'from a GuardBee scan' only weakly implies the workflow context.

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