project_findings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds context: it queries a 'durable Reef findings view', status derivation from the 'finding_ack ledger', and the canonical nature of the read path. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core filtering purpose but leaves many parameters unexplained (projectId, projectRef, freshnessPolicy, limit, and the relationship between status and includeResolved). The tool is moderately complex, so more detail is warranted.

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 compensate. It explains the 'source' parameter format and mentions filtering by overlay, source, status, and resolved inclusion. However, it omits explanations for the other parameters (projectId, projectRef, freshnessPolicy, limit, and details of overlay and status enums).

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 is a 'Reef read tool for active project findings' and specifies the filters (overlay, source, status, resolved inclusion). It also positions itself as the 'canonical read path for Reef-native lint/rule findings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like finding_ack.

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 indicates it's a read tool for querying findings and explains the source filter format, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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