pcb_list_accepted_findings

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation and adds context about 'accepted/suppressed' findings. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose behavior on invalid session IDs, pagination, or the exact return format, leaving moderate gaps 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 that directly states the purpose without any filler. It is well-structured and immediate.

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 tool is simple, but without an output schema or more behavioral details, the description leaves some uncertainty about what 'accepted/suppressed findings' entails and what the returned list looks like. It is adequate but could be enriched with a note about the findings' statuses or typical use case.

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?

The schema has one required session_id with 0% description coverage. The description only ties the parameter to 'a session', offering minimal additional meaning. It does not explain how to obtain a session ID, what format it should be in, or any related context, so the agent must infer from the parameter name alone.

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 identifies the action (list) and the target (accepted/suppressed findings) scoped to a session. This aligns with sibling tools like pcb_accept_finding, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other analysis tools.

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 implies a workflow (after accepting/suppressing findings, list them) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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