Recent Findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting behavior ('sorted by recency (newest first)'), default time range (30 days), and available filters (impact, language, protocol category). It does not mention pagination details or rate limits, but the schema covers page/page_size. The description is transparent about the core 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary, followed by a bullet list of when-to-use scenarios, and then a clear list of alternatives. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. No redundant or verbose content.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (all optional) and no output schema. The description covers the main intent (browsing recent findings with filters) and specifies sorting and default time range. It does not describe the output format or pagination behavior, but the schema provides page/page_size defaults. For a browse tool, the description is fairly complete, though a note about the structure of returned findings would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'optimized presets for 30/60/90 days' for the 'days' parameter, and lists the filter categories (impact, language, protocol category) which are already detailed in the schema. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Browse the most recent Solodit findings from the last N days.' It specifies the verb (browse), resource (findings), and scope (recent, last N days, sorted by recency). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternative tools with different use cases.

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 explicit 'When to use' scenarios (checking new vulnerabilities, staying up to date, browsing with filters) and explicitly lists when NOT to use the tool, directing to search_findings, search_by_tag, and get_finding_detail for specific alternatives. This is excellent guidance for an AI agent.

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