list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether results are paginated, ordered, readonly, permission-restricted, or what happens if the analysis does not exist.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details. It is easy to parse and front-loads the core verb and object.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so the core action is minimally conveyed. However, the description omits what the findings list returns, any limitations, and interaction with sibling tools, which leaves clear contextual gaps.

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 only parameter is analysis_id, but the schema covers 0% with no description and no format details. The tool description only implies its purpose through the phrase 'for an analysis,' which is minimal compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and an explicit resource ('security findings') with a clear scope ('for an analysis'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_features and list_screens by targeting a distinct resource type.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like get_analysis, get_report, or list_features. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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