list_finding_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether metadata is paginated, what format key-value pairs take, or any authentication requirements. For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema explanation (though output schema exists), this is a significant gap.

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 very brief (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. The 'Args:' section is a standard docstring format but adds little beyond repeating the parameter. It is concise but not maximally informative per sentence.

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 that there are no annotations, an output schema exists (which the description need not explain), and the tool is a simple list operation with one parameter, the description is missing key behavioral context: read-only status, return structure (key-value pairs), and any usage caveats. It is not complete enough for an agent to call with full confidence.

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%, but there is only one parameter. The description repeats the parameter name ('finding_id') and provides the same information as the schema's title ('Finding Id'). It does not add type hints, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already implies. Baseline is 3 due to low parameter count (1) and minimal room to add value.

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: 'List metadata key-value pairs for a finding.' This is clear and distinguishable from the sibling add_finding_metadata (a write operation). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list_* tools, but the resource (finding metadata) is specific enough to identify the target.

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. It is not stated whether this is the only way to retrieve metadata, nor whether there are related tools for filtering or searching. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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