add_finding

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that findings are included in reports and that the server only stores data, implying a write operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or any limitations beyond storage.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the action. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second provides useful context about reports and agent responsibility, though it could be seen as slightly redundant.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no annotations, the description lacks crucial details like the meaning of 'evidence' and 'severity', and does not mention the output schema. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool usage without looking at the schema.

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 description does not explain individual parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the text only mentions 'engagement' and 'finding' without detailing the 5 parameters (including 'evidence' and 'severity'). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record a finding on an engagement (e.g. a confirmed jailbreak or policy violation).' It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('finding on engagement'), with examples. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides usage context: 'Findings are included in generated reports. The agent decides what constitutes a finding; the server only stores it.' This implies when to use (when a finding is identified) and who is responsible. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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