zap_findings_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default grouped-detail behavior and the raw-instance mode, and notes that raw instances are 'bounded'. It does not mention failure modes or exact limits, but for a read-style details tool this is reasonably 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?

Two compact sentences, with the primary use case front-loaded and the mode switch explained in the second sentence. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of the schema.

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?

The description captures the core decision—grouped details by default vs raw instances with includeInstances=true—and identifies the relationship to the summary tool. It does not specify filter combination behavior, sort order, or a concrete cap on the instance limit, but with all parameters optional and no output schema, it is broadly sufficient for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly paraphrases the schema's includeInstances semanticsmation and adds only minor examples like 'attack samples'. It does not meaningfully explain filters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Drill into findings') on a clear resource and explicitly positions it after the summary, distinguishing it from the sibling zap_findings_summary. The two output modes (grouped vs raw instances) make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool after reading the summary, and gives a concrete condition for choosing includeInstances=true when raw occurrences are needed. This clearly routes the agent to this tool instead of the summary sibling.

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