list_finding_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering behavior (newest first), which is a genuine trait beyond the schema, but omits any permission requirements, error behavior for missing findings, or pagination/volume characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded core sentence followed by a compact Args block; there is no filler. The Args boilerplate is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

For a simple read tool backed by an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, and the ordering note helps. It still says nothing about what happens when finding_id does not exist or about result size, leaving small gaps.

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, yet it only restates 'The finding ID', which duplicates the parameter name and the schema title. No type, format, or example is added.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (notes for a finding), and the name/description distinguishes it from list_test_notes and list_engagement_notes by scope. No explicit sibling differentiation in the text, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are offered. The reader must infer from the name that this is the read counterpart to add_finding_note/remove_finding_note; nothing routes them explicitly.

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