triage_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, ordering, pagination, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 filler or redundancy. It conveys the core operation and filter capability 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?

Given the low tool complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete. It only lacks explicit sibling guidance and any mention of default behavior beyond the schema defaults, but those are available elsewhere.

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%, with all four parameters documented including defaults and example values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'filters,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('findings'), and mentions optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like triage_get (single finding), triage_summary (aggregate), and triage_save/triage_update (writes).

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 conveys the basic use case: list findings, optionally filtered. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related triage tools or mention any exclusions/prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully additive.

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