list_findings

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only nature, filtering behavior (client-side, post-filter total), return structure (bundled vulnerability, component, analysis state), and include_details trade-off (payload size). Highly transparent.

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?

Well-structured with summary, behavioral notes, and parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but all content adds value; could tighten a few phrases.

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?

Covers main behaviors, pagination, filtering, and include_details. Output schema exists, so return values not needed. Lacks error handling or prerequisites (e.g., project UUID from list_projects), but still sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 the Args section thoroughly explains each parameter, including examples for analysis_states and severities, and details on include_details. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'List vulnerability findings for a project with optional filters.' Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_analysis or set_analysis.

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?

Provides usage context: filters applied client-side, pagination behavior, and advice on include_details (use only for focused batches). Does not explicitly contrast with all sibling alternatives but gives clear guidance.

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