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, composes from existing per-model queries server-side, and returns an envelope verbatim with specific fields. This covers key behavioral traits for a read operation. Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but overall sufficient.

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, starting with the purpose, then usage guidelines, then return envelope details. It is concise without unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly shorter.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description mostly suffices. However, the failure to explain the only input parameter is a notable gap. The description otherwise gives a complete picture of what the tool does and its return structure.

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?

Input schema has one required parameter (server_version) with no schema-level description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any meaning. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does 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 states it is a workspace-scoped triage dashboard that returns open findings, active risk acceptances, and at-risk Control Objectives. It contrasts with sibling tools like list_findings or list_risk_acceptances by offering a consolidated entry point for 'what's open?' queries.

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?

Explicitly advises using this as the entry point when an operator asks 'what's open?' or 'what should I work on next?'. It emphasizes that one round-trip returns all three categories, implying this is faster than using separate tools. Does not mention explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear.

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