Clasificar hallazgos

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: the decision is remembered by fingerprint and propagates to future scans of the same project, and it implies a write/mutation. Missing are reversibility/overwrite semantics, permission requirements, and what the call returns (e.g. how many findings were updated).

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the allowed statuses, then the persistence nuance. No filler; the compressed 'Se recuerda por huella' phrasing is slightly terse but earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description covers the status vocabulary and the cross-run persistence effect but leaves run_id undefined and says nothing about result shape or the conditional note requirement. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% — only 'note' is documented in the schema — so the description needs to compensate and largely doesn't. It hints that a justifying note accompanies the status and that findings are keyed by fingerprint, but it never explains the mandatory-note exception for open/confirmed (schema says this, description implies the opposite: a note for every decision) and leaves run_id completely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Marca ... hallazgos') plus the full set of target statuses (confirmed, false_positive, accepted_risk, fixed, open), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with, but the triage action is clearly distinct from findings_query or finding_get.

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?

Usage is implied by the triage framing and the note requirement, and the persistence statement gives useful context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over findings_query/finding_get, nor any exclusions or preconditions (permissions, whether a note is required for some statuses).

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