analyze_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It states the tool analyzes and prioritizes, returns a structured report, and identifies specific categories, providing some insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how 'recent scans' is defined, or any edge-case handling, which are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a scannable parameter list. The final 'Returns' line partially repeats the earlier output mention but adds concrete output types, and the overall structure is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description covers all inputs and gives a high-level view of outputs. It does not define 'recent scans' or the exact report schema, but given the tool's moderate complexity and the richness of the parameter explanations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter in plain language, including values (e.g., min_severity: low/medium/high/critical) and defaults (e.g., max_items default 20), fully compensating for the bare schema. This is exactly what the description should do when the schema lacks descriptions.

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 'Analyze and prioritize all findings from recent scans,' which is a specific verb+resource. It then enumerates distinct outputs (attack paths, quick wins, critical issues, credential reuse opportunities) and positions the tool as returning a 'structured triage report,' clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_findings or analyze_attack_chains.

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 implies usage when a prioritized triage report for recent findings is needed, and the parameter explanations clarify how to filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_findings or analyze_attack_chains, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the guidance implicit.

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