roasr_list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses key output characteristics (priority ranking, stable status) and scoping behavior, which is useful. It does not mention read-only nature, auth, rate limits, or error conditions, but for a list tool this is moderate 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and provides essential details without wordiness or repetition.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output ordering (severity), and scoping. It omits details like pagination or exhaustive list guarantees, but these are not critical for this 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 only parameter, clientId, is fully described in the schema as an optional client UUID with instructions to omit for workspace-wide results. The description's 'Can be scoped to one client' merely restates the schema comment without adding new semantic meaning, so baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool returns AI audit findings across connected ad accounts (Meta, Google, Yandex Direct), with issues ranked by severity (high/med/low) and a stable status. It also mentions optional client scoping, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling metrics/spy 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 usage when audit findings are needed and clarifies that scope can be limited to one client. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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