List Findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a good job: it declares Read-only, explains that returned rows carry lifecycle status, and clarifies the origin distinction between 'own' and 'inherited' findings, including that inherited findings are included. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or auth, but these are less critical for a read-only listing tool with an output schema.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core action and read-only nature come first, followed by return-row semantics and explicit downstream use cases. Every sentence contributes unique information.

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 is complete for a listing tool: it covers what is returned, the origin behavior, the read-only safety profile, and concrete use cases. The only notable omission is the meaning of the required server_version parameter, since the schema leaves it undocumented and the description does not address it.

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 coverage is 75%, and the schema already gives rich meaning to status, model_id, and control_id, including the nuanced auto_resolved semantics. The description adds context about finding rows and origins but does not clarify the undocumented server_version parameter or add direct parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for the gap nor repeats excessive detail.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List negative findings recorded on a threat model') and immediately distinguishes the tool as read-only. It also names downstream consumers of the output ('for update_finding / preview_finding_remediation'), making its role among many sibling tools unmistakable.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to triage gaps or to obtain a finding_id for later update/remediation tools. It does not explicitly name competing list/get tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full exclusion-based guideline.

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