get_sie_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('retrieve', 'inspect'), describes what is returned (severity, detector type, etc.), and adds governance details (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). No destructive behavior is implied, and the description is thorough.

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 relatively concise (two paragraphs), front-loads the purpose, and includes necessary details like scope and governance. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is well-structured and informative without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return values (severity, detector type, fix class, file paths, remediation). It covers authentication (scope) and governance (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). For a simple retrieval tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds global context but does not elaborate beyond the schema. Following baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 defines the tool as retrieving the SIE security finding queue, listing pending findings with details like severity and detector type. It distinguishes from siblings such as approve_sie_finding (which approves findings) and trigger_sie_scan (which triggers scans), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 states to use this tool to inspect security issues flagged for human approval, providing clear context. It also specifies the required scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the context is implicit.

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