list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by explaining the intended remediation path (local page via `kitden open`, which previews, backs up and undoes) and by warning against the tempting workaround of hand-editing settings files. It could say more about output shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose and finding categories are front-loaded, followed by the parameter default and then the read-only/anti-workaround guidance. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical tool description is the only slightly sprawling element.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so the description need not define them, and the annotation set covers safety. Combined with the finding taxonomy and the remediation guidance, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only sibling routing and path format remain open.

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 0% for the single parameter, and the schema default is null with no explanation. The description usefully resolves that ambiguity by stating project_path defaults to the current folder. It still says nothing about accepted path forms (relative vs absolute) or what happens with an invalid project.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List problems for a project") and enumerates the concrete finding categories: duplicates, cross-client folder loads, overrides, unknown states, untested versions, gateway-bypassing MCP servers. That is far beyond the bare name. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like explain_item or show_setup, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives a default for project_path (current folder) and a strong negative instruction not to edit client settings files, redirecting to `kitden open`. But it never states when to prefer this over explain_item or show_setup, which is the core routing decision an agent faces among these siblings.

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