list_unconfirmed_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering by severity and the meaning of the host filter default, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe return format or pagination. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The two sentences plus parameter documentation contain no redundant words and every line provides useful 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?

For a simple filtered list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose, intended workflow, ordering, parameter meanings, and next step. It does not describe the exact return structure, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'host' with 'empty = all' and 'min_severity' with the allowed values info/low/medium/high/critical. This adds concrete, actionable semantics beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' targeting 'findings pending validation' for the 'current engagement', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_findings or engagement_findings. It also notes ordering by severity and the intended next action (update_finding_status), reinforcing its specific role.

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 the intended workflow: a validation agent processes unconfirmed findings one by one and calls update_finding_status. This gives strong context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternative list tools.

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