list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear the operation is a read-only retrieval of all findings, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose additional details such as pagination, ordering, or potential performance implications of fetching all records.

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, short sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless list operation, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient: it names the resource and the action. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what a 'finding' is or whether results are paginated, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing additional the description needs to explain about parameters.

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 ('取得する' = retrieve) and the resource ('監査指摘' = audit findings), specifying the scope as '全件' (all). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'find_by_status' (filtered retrieval) and 'update_finding_status' (mutation).

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 word '全件' (all) implies this tool is for retrieving the complete set of findings without filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is largely implied from the sibling tool names.

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