sourcery_list_findings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pagination contract (a next_cursor is returned and can be passed back), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about default limit, read-only nature, or result volume beyond the implied list semantics.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the paging tip second. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given how much parameter surface goes undocumented.

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 six-parameter, zero-description-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves most of the contract (filter fields, enum values, limits, result shape) unspecified. Only pagination is addressed.

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 none of the six parameters are named in the description beyond the generic phrase 'spec filters' and the cursor mention. The cursor behavior is the one genuinely useful hint added, but limit, search, statuses, issue_types, and repository_ids remain unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List security issues') and the mechanism (filters, cursor paging), which distinguishes it from the singular sourcery_get_finding and the aggregate sourcery_get_security_counts. However 'spec filters' is vague phrasing that doesn't name what can be filtered, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Implies usage ('pass a previous next_cursor to page') which tells the agent how to continue iteration, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over sourcery_get_security_counts, sourcery_security_snapshot, or sourcery_get_finding. No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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