Get Vulnerability Findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no repeating. The description adds the useful 'up to 20 findings at a time' cap but never explains how to retrieve the rest — and the schema has no pagination, offset or cursor parameter, so the limit disclosure creates a question it does not answer.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returning payload before the limit and the alternative. The field enumeration is slightly long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates what a finding contains (severity, CVSS, CWE, PoC, remediation). The one real gap is the unexplained 20-item cap versus an absent pagination parameter.

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 100%: both pentest_id and the severity enum are fully documented, including per-level definitions. The description only restates the severity filter's purpose, adding no format, default or combined-filter guidance beyond the schema.

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 (retrieve), resource (vulnerability findings) and scope (a completed penetration test). That scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that start or analyze tests, and the enumerated field list makes the payload concrete.

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?

Gives two concrete routing cues: use the severity filter to focus on risk levels, and use turbopentest_download_report for a full exportable report. It does not mention when to prefer turbopentest_workflow_analyze_findings instead, which is the closest ambiguous sibling.

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