get_instance_scan_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context by explaining that findings are best-practice violations and that filtering by check or suite result is possible, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and filter options without any fluff. Every part is informative and necessary.

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 list tool with four optional filters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose but does not describe the return structure or any pagination details beyond the limit parameter. While not critical, an agent might benefit from knowing what fields are returned in each finding.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning filters for check and suite result, but this is already covered in the schema. It does not add new semantic details for limit or table.

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 (List), the resource (Instance Scan findings), and the nature of the findings (best-practice violations), with optional filters. It is specific and distinct from siblings like list_scan_suites, which deals with suites rather than findings.

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 through the mention of optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is the only tool for scan findings, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but not ideal.

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