list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, includes lifecycle status, and explains the origin field ('own' vs 'inherited') with inherited_from_* context. It also notes that inherited findings are included. Missing details like pagination or ordering, but this is adequate for a list tool.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core action, then adds usage context, then explains the origin semantics. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, but it already covers row contents (lifecycle status, origin) and the own/inherited distinction. It also states read-only. No mention of pagination or limits, but this is a simple listing tool and the description is sufficient.

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 input schema covers status, model_id, and control_id, but leaves server_version undocumented (75% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific details; it focuses on output row semantics (origin, lifecycle). Thus it does not compensate for the missing server_version description, though the schema covers most params.

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 'List negative findings recorded on a threat model. Read-only.' This combines a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('negative findings' on a threat model), and explicitly labels it read-only, distinguishing it from mutation tools like update_finding and preview_finding_remediation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use to triage gaps or to find a finding_id for update_finding / preview_finding_remediation.' This names dependent tools and provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative listing tools, but it gives strong practical guidance.

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