list_findings

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list all findings', but does not disclose behavior like error handling for invalid engagement_id, pagination, or performance implications. The description is too minimal for an agent to understand side effects or edge cases.

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 extremely concise with one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with parameter or usage information. Could be improved by adding parameter context while remaining brief.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or structure. It lacks details on prerequisites, error states, or any behavioral nuances. Given the tool has one required parameter and siblings, the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the required parameter engagement_id at all. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the schema, which only defines it as a string. This is a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists findings for an engagement. The verb 'list', resource 'findings', and scope 'on an engagement' make the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like add_finding or close_engagement, but could be more explicit about the scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives. There are related siblings like get_engagement and list_engagements, but the description does not clarify when list_findings is appropriate or any prerequisites.

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