Find audit findings from workpaper 4 with ratings and statuses. Optionally filter by High, Medium, or Low rating (case-insensitive).
Findings from workpaper 4 with rating and status. Optional rating filter (High, Medium, Low), case-insensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the rating filter is optional and case-insensitive, which is useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Minor awkwardness in 'Findings from workpaper 4 with rating and status,' which reads like a fragment rather than a stated action.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. For a single-optional-filter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly, though scope ('workpaper 4') is ambiguous.
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 parameter has no enum, so the description carries the burden. It does so reasonably: it enumerates the accepted values (High, Medium, Low) and states matching is case-insensitive, which the schema does not convey.
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?
It names the resource ('findings') and scopes it to 'workpaper 4' with rating and status fields, but there is no verb ('list' is only implied by the name) and the hardcoded workpaper identifier is confusing. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like open_items or get_workpaper.
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 this tool versus open_items or get_workpaper, and no mention of prerequisites or scope constraints. The only usage-like statement is that the rating filter is optional, which is inferred from the schema default anyway.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.