invariance_finding_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by defining findings as durable, structured issues and noting caller-visible scoping and pagination, but it does not disclose ordering, default limits, or error behaviors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical clarifies the resource type, and the key behaviors (list, visible to caller, paginated) are all included efficiently.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the essential operation and scoping. However, with no output schema, it does not mention the shape of returned findings or the next_cursor field that agents need to navigate pagination, leaving minor but real 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 50%, and the cursor parameter is already well described in the schema. The description adds the general concept of pagination but does not clarify limit defaults or how cursor interacts with pagination beyond what the schema already states. This is a baseline-adequate contribution.

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 identifies a list operation on the 'findings' resource and defines what findings are. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like invariance_monitor_findings or invariance_finding_get, so an agent needs to infer the correct selection.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invariance_monitor_findings or invariance_finding_get. The phrase 'visible to the caller' implies a scoping rule, but no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria are stated.

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