manage_false_positives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Manage false positive suppressions' implies mutation operations (add/remove) and read operations (list/filter), but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool with multiple actions and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that implies its function, though it could be more front-loaded with operational details. Every word earns its place, but the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, security domain) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves critical security operations like suppressing findings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (action, findingId, reason) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Manage false positive suppressions' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'manage_false_positives'. It lacks a specific verb indicating what operations are performed (add, remove, list, filter) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_custom_rules' or 'check_compliance'. While it mentions the resource domain (false positive suppressions), the purpose remains vague without operational details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a scan), or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'check_compliance' or 'generate_remediation' might overlap in security contexts, but there's no explicit comparison or usage scenarios to help an agent decide appropriately.

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