scan_buckets_findings

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds behavioral details: 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' and 'reads can be owner-scoped'. This gives extra context about failure modes and scoping, though it does not enumerate all edge cases.

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 concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, constraints, and parameter roles. No redundant or verbose language.

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 read-only retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context: when to use, permission hints, and parameter details. Output is not described, but that is acceptable given the tool type and absence of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters (scanId, target, providers) are explicitly described: scanId is required for owner-scoped access, and target/providers are optional filters. This provides full semantic coverage for the parameters.

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 states the tool's function: retrieving findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan. It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_buckets_start and scan_buckets_status, and the name reinforces purpose.

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 indicates when to use (after a completed scan) and notes optional filters, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use instead of scan_buckets_status'). The mention of 'Operator-deploy only' provides some deployment guidance.

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