list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating findings are 'recent' and that the tool is for browsing, not targeted search. However, it does not define what 'recent' means, whether full findings or summaries are returned, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects, which would push it higher.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary, then uses labeled sections for triggers, search alternatives, and parameters. Every section contributes actionable information without filler. The structure is easy to scan and front-loads the most important context.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, triggers, alternatives, and parameter semantics. The absence of an output schema means return fields are not described, and 'recent' is left undefined, leaving some uncertainty about ordering and response content. It is sufficient for correct invocation but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides only type and default values with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates with a PARAMETERS section: 'limit: Max findings to return (default: 50, max: 200)' adds the maximum bound, and 'offset: Offset for pagination (default: 0)' explains its purpose. Both parameters are clearly and completely described.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List recent findings in the library.' It further clarifies the tool's scope with 'Use for browsing, not targeted search,' which distinguishes it from search_findings and retrieve_findings. The purpose is immediately clear and 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 includes an 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section with three explicit conditions: when the user asks to see all findings or browse, when wanting a sense of stored content, and when checking library contents after initialization. It also explicitly routes targeted search to search_findings or retrieve_findings. This provides both strong inclusion and exclusion guidance.

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