list_findings

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the return shape (array of findings with evidence sub-objects), the ordering, and the crucial caveat that it is read-only "apart from creating the workspace if it doesn't exist," which the schema confirms records a job. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotation, candidly disclosing a side effect the hint glosses over.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose plus return shape, then the dedup routing, then the read-only caveat. The purpose and ordering constraint are front-loaded before the usage note.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return contract by spelling out the finding object and its evidence array. Combined with the filter documentation in the schema, the side-effect disclosure, and the create_finding routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 status, entityId and workspace are already fully documented, including the enum and the default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies even though the surrounding prose is strong.

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 (List) and resource (findings), and defines the resource inline as "claims about the target with their status, confidence and evidence," plus the ordering (newest first). It also names the sibling create_finding, so an agent can place it relative to list_artifacts/list_knowledge without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use: "Check it before create_finding so you don't record the same claim twice," which routes the agent to the deduplication workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how to choose between it and other read siblings like list_knowledge, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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