list_findings

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It does not disclose behavior for missing data (e.g., no recent audit), permissions, pagination, or return format. Only mentions listing and filtering, lacking 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 concise sentence, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly to include key parameters without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output, connection to sibling tools, or behavior when no audit exists. The agent would have uncertainties about 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It explains 'severity' as an optional filter but ignores the 'project' parameter entirely. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the project parameter unexplained.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'findings', and specifies 'from the most recent audit' and optional severity filtering. However, it does not mention the 'project' parameter, which is present in the schema, causing slight ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (audit_project, preview_fix). The description does not indicate that an audit must be run first or that this tool should be used before preview_fix. Lacks explicit usage context.

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