get_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses several behavioral details: it returns a list of normalized Finding objects with specified fields, 'leave empty to get all recent findings,' and filters by severity/confidence. It doesn't cover potential error conditions or ordering, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by parameter definitions, then return type. Each sentence adds value, and no information is redundant.

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 provides all essential information for a simple retrieval tool: purpose, all parameters, and return structure. It could mention explicit alternative usage (e.g., for raw output) or pagination, but given the schema and no annotations, this is largely 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully documents each parameter, including allowed values for min_severity and min_confidence and the 'leave empty' behavior for job_id. This compensates completely for the lack of schema 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?

Description states 'Extract and return normalized findings from a completed job,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from siblings like get_job_output (raw output) by emphasizing 'normalized' and 'completed job.'

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for extracting findings from a completed job, and explains parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_job_output for raw output.

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