get_findings

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

Behavioral traits are sparse: the description indicates it returns a list of findings but does not specify if it is read-only, what happens when snapshot_id is invalid, or any error conditions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 relatively concise, with a clear opening sentence and a structured docstring format for parameters and return value. It is front-loaded but could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 optional params, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, its parameters, and return. However, it lacks examples or usage context, making it minimally complete.

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 description adds meaning to all five parameters (severity, max_findings, snapshot_id) by explaining their purpose and providing defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'security findings from the scan,' differentiating it from siblings like get_scan_summary. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool explain_finding or list findings variations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_access or get_scan_summary. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for selecting this tool over others.

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