list-posture-findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and scope, lacking details on side effects (e.g., read-only nature), pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal disclosure for a list tool.

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 (two sentences), but this conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but it could benefit from front-loading key behavioral info while remaining succinct.

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 absence of output schema and the complexity of parameters (5, with nested objects), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination handling, or how to use filters effectively, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. It gives no guidance on the 'filter', 'page', 'snapshotTimestamp', 'detailedFindings', or 'limit' parameters, leaving the agent with no insight into their meaning or usage.

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 clearly states it lists legacy CSPM/CIEM posture management findings (misconfigurations and identity risks) and mentions compliance use cases. The verb 'list' and the resource 'posture findings' are clear, but the sibling 'search-security-findings' exists without explicit differentiation, though 'legacy' hints at a distinction.

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 provides some context (compliance use-cases) and required scope, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search-security-findings' or when not to use it.

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