get_finding_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions required, or what a 'duplicate' relationship means in this system. The only signal is the weak implication of 'Get' that this is a read operation, which is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loads the core action, which is good. However, the Args block is redundant with the schema and the overall text is terse to the point of under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool embedded in a dense finding-lifecycle sibling set with no annotations, the description should clarify prerequisites, the meaning of duplicates, and its relation to close_finding_duplicate/reset_finding_duplicate_status. It omits all of this.

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%, so the description must compensate, but 'finding_id: The finding ID' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or constraint detail. An agent gains nothing beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get duplicate findings for a given finding,' which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like close_finding_duplicate or reset_finding_duplicate_status, which also operate on the duplicate concept.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or how it differs from the numerous sibling finding tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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