Query policy findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the shape of results (fields like firstHitTime, activeHits, status, joined assets) and explains filter semantics. It does not discuss pagination or side effects, but for a read-only query tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a bulleted filter list, and relevant examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes useful information and the organization aids comprehension.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description explains the core behavior, common filters, and result fields. It does not cover edge cases or alternative output formats, but the provided context is sufficient for most uses, especially given the output schema is available separately.

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%, so the description compensates by detailing severity_at_least, status, mitre_technique, and since with concrete examples and format expectations. It leaves limit, search, plugin_id, and policy_id implicit, but those are relatively self-explanatory from their names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns per-asset findings for one or more detection policies.' It clearly defines the output as rows of (policy × asset × hit count) and distinguishes this from sibling query tools like query_vulnerabilities or query_events by focusing on policy 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?

Provides clear use cases: 'see which assets keep tripping a policy (often a tuning gap), or which assets are MITRE-mapped to a specific technique.' This gives strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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