oss_finding_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: evidence is verified against a fixed commit, invalid evidence is rejected, symbol_ids are marked as reviewed, and important+ severity requires independent review. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as mutation semantics, replacement behavior via the `replaces` parameter, idempotency, and permissions.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list. The text is efficient and has little wasted language, though the Args list is incomplete relative to the full schema.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core evidence/severity behavior but omits required identifiers, replacement semantics, and return/response behavior.

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 0% and there are 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters `text`, `evidence` with both accepted shapes, `symbol_ids`, and `severity`, but leaves `project_id`, `unit_id`, `agent`, and `replaces` undocumented beyond their names.

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 clearly states the action: recording a conclusion together with evidence. It adds specific scope via fixed-commit verification and rejection on invalid evidence, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as oss_unknown_record or oss_claim_review.

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 explains what evidence formats are accepted and that important/critical findings need independent review, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like oss_unknown_record, oss_claim_review, or oss_symbols_mark. With many sibling tools, the lack of explicit routing guidance is a significant gap.

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