Submit Findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly says 'Mutating: persists new finding records against the model' and notes the lifecycle with update_finding/list_findings. However, it does not mention idempotency, duplicate behavior, whether submissions can be overwritten, or any permission requirements—common gaps for a mutating 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and mutating nature; the second gives concrete usage context; the third adds the assertion counterpart and subsequent lifecycle tools. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a detailed input schema and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains why and when to use it, what findings mean, and how to manage them afterward. The main residual gap is the under-documented server_version parameter and the lack of idempotency/duplicate caveats, but these are minor given the overall context.

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 already documents model_id and findings_json in detail, including the JSON array format and rejection of malformed input. The description adds useful intent behind model_id and findings_json, but it does not clarify server_version, one of three required parameters that has no schema description.

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 ('Record') and resource ('negative findings... gaps discovered while scanning a codebase against a model's controls'), and explicitly distinguishes findings from assertions via submit_assertions. An agent can clearly tell this tool apart from related siblings 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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use after a gap-discovery scan (see get_scan_prompt)' and clarifies it is for logging where expected evidence was NOT found. It also contrasts with submit_assertions and points to update_finding/list_findings for lifecycle and review, giving clear alternatives and next steps.

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