Get Findings Risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly states the endpoint is read-only and fast, composes server-side from existing per-model queries, and returns the envelope verbatim. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the operation's safety and behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose first, usage trigger second, return envelope third. Each sentence adds substantive information, and there is no filler or 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?

The description covers scope, contents, usage context, and return shape in enough detail for an agent to understand what the tool provides. The only notable missing context is the meaning of 'server_version' and how it relates to workspace-triage behavior.

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 sole required parameter 'server_version' has no schema description and no coverage in the tool description. The description never mentions the parameter, its purpose, format, or allowed values, leaving the agent to guess what to pass. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 identifies a specific resource ('workspace-scoped triage dashboard') and enumerates exactly what it returns: open findings, active risk acceptances, and at-risk Control Objectives across every model. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_findings and list_risk_acceptances by emphasizing the aggregate, multi-model scope.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('what's open?' or 'what should I work on next?') and positions the tool as the entry point, with the benefit of no per-model fan-out. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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