scan_get_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions ordering ('newest first') and tenant scoping but omits key behaviors like whether the operation is read-only, pagination limits, or potential impact on other resources. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks any mention of pagination or retrieval limits, which could be relevant for large result sets. Still, given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema description coverage is 100% trivially, and the description adds no parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

States clearly that the tool retrieves scan findings for the tenant associated with the key, ordered newest first. The verb 'get' in the name and the resource 'findings' make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling scan tools like scan_trigger, which initiate scans rather than retrieve results.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of configuration prerequisites or contexts where this tool should be preferred over scan_* variants. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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