get_findings_risks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'read-only and fast' and 'composes from existing per-model queries server-side'. This provides a good behavioral picture, though it lacks details on authentication or rate limits. It does not contradict any annotations (none present).

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 and front-loaded. It starts with a high-level purpose, then gives usage context, then technical behavior, then output format. Each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 tool has low complexity (one parameter). The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output structure. The only missing piece is parameter semantics, which is a gap given the 0% schema coverage. Nonetheless, for an otherwise simple tool, the description is largely complete.

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 only parameter, 'server_version', is not described in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's role, but it only mentions the output structure. The agent is left guessing what 'server_version' means and how to set it.

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 purpose as a 'Workspace-scoped triage dashboard' listing open findings, active risk acceptances, and at-risk Control Objectives. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being an aggregated entry point without per-model fan-out.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this as the entry point when an operator asks "what's open?" or "what should I work on next?"'. This text tells the agent when to invoke this tool and contrasts it with alternatives (e.g., per-model queries), making the guidance very clear.

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