create_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely falls short. It confirms the mutation ('Create') but says nothing about permissions required, whether the call is idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or any rate/side-effect considerations; the only behavioral hints (active defaults True, verified defaults False) are already present as schema defaults.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the body is a raw Args dump rather than curated guidance. Most lines add no information beyond the parameter name, so the block is longer than its informational value warrants.

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?

With 19 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description should at least cover invocation context and key parameter semantics. It nominally touches every parameter, which is the minimum, but leaves the agent without usage context or relationship to sibling finding tools.

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% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It usefully supplies the severity vocabulary (Critical, High, Medium, Low, Info) and the numerical_severity scale (S0-S4), which the schema lacks as enums, but most other entries are bare restatements of the property name ('component_name: Affected component', 'cwe: CWE identifier number').

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 'Create a new finding' gives a specific verb and resource, so the operation is immediately identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling tools that also act on findings (update_finding, get_finding, list_findings, delete_finding), so an agent gets no help routing between them beyond the verb.

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 description says nothing about when to use this tool versus update_finding, import_scan, or the various close_finding_* tools. There is no statement of prerequisites, such as the fact that test_id must reference an existing test, nor any exclusion guidance.

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