List Findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it declares 'Read-only,' describes returned lifecycle status, and explains origin semantics including that inherited findings are included. It does not cover pagination, permissions, or rate limits, but it is substantially more transparent than a bare list operation.

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 three tightly structured sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core operation and read-only nature, then adds usage and row-origin context in descending priority.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return fields in full, and it still usefully clarifies the origin distinction for inherited findings. It is complete for a read-only list tool, though it omits edge-case behavior such as pagination or empty results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema largely documents the parameters, including the rich status filter semantics. The description adds no direct parameter-level guidance for status, model_id, or control_id, so a baseline 3 is appropriate rather than credit for compensating beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List negative findings recorded on a threat model.' It also distinguishes this read-only listing from write-oriented siblings by naming update_finding and remediate_finding as consumers of the returned finding_id. An agent can identify what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear usage contexts: 'use to triage gaps or to find a finding_id for update_finding / remediate_finding.' It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative such as get_findings_risks, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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