Finding cards

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: defaults exclude fixed and 'not-a-bug' findings, the not-a-bug count is still surfaced, and an explicit escape hatch (`filter {feedback: ["not-a-bug"]}`) is given. It also discloses inline picture caps (10 images, 1024 px) and that it 'touches no browser', none of which appear in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then usage, then defaults, then pictures — a sensible priority order with zero filler sentences. It is one long run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals, which makes it denser than it needs to be and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted or multi-sentence structure.

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 read-only listing tool with a full output schema, every agent-facing question is answered: what is returned, in what order, what is hidden by default, how to reveal it, how pictures are delivered, and that no browser interaction occurs. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description goes beyond it: it explains the default exclusion of fixed/not-a-bug and how to override it, that `ids` bypasses status/label filtering, and that 'files' is the default picture mode with inline limited to 10 images at 1024 px. The `limit` parameter is not mentioned in the description, a minor gap given the schema covers it.

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 and resource ('Show the project's findings as plain cards') plus the ordering rule ('worst first') and enumerates exactly what each card contains (impact, title, problem kind, page, steps, expected, actual, id). That level of specificity makes it unmistakable against siblings like scout_report or scout_recap, which imply aggregate/reporting output rather than per-finding plain-text cards.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'at the end of a guided check, or whenever the person wants to read what was found in plain words,' and adds an output-format instruction ('post each card's text as it is'). It does not name a sibling alternative or say when to prefer scout_recap/scout_report instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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