file_findings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that findings are durable, uses same overlay/source/status filters as project_findings, and supports source aliases. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 9-parameter complexity and existence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's purpose and usage. Could be enhanced by mentioning the return value characteristics, but output schema compensates.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions 'overlay/source/status filters' and 'source aliases', which adds semantic context. However, it does not individually describe the 9 parameters beyond a high-level mapping, leaving some clarity gaps.

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 the tool returns 'durable Reef findings' for one file, identifies it as a read tool, and distinguishes it from sibling project_findings by specifying the same filters and source aliases.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before editing a file when a shell or agent needs known active diagnostics without rerunning broad lint.' Provides clear when-to-use context but does not elaborate on when not to use or explicitly name alternatives beyond project_findings.

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