record_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a finding is stored, lists steps, and describes the return dict, but does not detail side effects such as whether the finding is appended, whether existing data is overwritten, or any error conditions.

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 distinct sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.) and an example. However, INPUT_DESCRIPTION and OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION are somewhat redundant with the Args and Returns sections.

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 description covers purpose, usage, parameters, output, example, and prerequisites. Related tools are listed but not explained, and side effects are not fully specified, but the tool is simple and the provided information is sufficient.

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 Args section provides meaningful descriptions for all 7 parameters, including allowed severity values and reference types (CVEs, URLs). Since the schema properties have no descriptions, this fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool records a security finding in the engagement session. The USECASE further specifies it captures vulnerabilities/observations for the final report, distinguishing it from scan/enumeration siblings.

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 USECASE provides clear context for when to use the tool (capturing vulnerabilities for the final report), and RELATED_TOOLS names related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from generate_report/session_summary beyond the implicit purpose.

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