list_assessment_results_findings

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully covers behavior. It states the tool lists findings, describes pagination, and details the return format. No side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a read-like operation, though it could explicitly note it's read-only.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a brief explanation of findings, a bulleted Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description addresses both inputs and outputs comprehensively. It explains pagination and the structure of returned items, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear parameter explanations: parent_doc_uuid (optional UUID for scoping), offset (default 0), and limit (default 10, range 1-100). This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool lists finding elements within OSCAL Assessment Results documents. It explains what findings are (determinations about control implementation status), and the tool name is distinct from siblings like list_assessment_plans or list_catalogs.

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 explains the context (within assessment results documents) and parameters like parent_doc_uuid for scoping. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use list_assessment_results instead.

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