get_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly identifies this as a read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, pagination, or other execution details. The read-only nature is a positive signal, but additional context would strengthen transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema is present to describe returns, and the single parameter is clear. The description is largely sufficient, though it could be more explicit about the requirement of report_id and what qualifies as a 'stored review report'.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'report_id' with no description, and the description only gives minimal context by referencing 'stored review report'. It does not explain the expected format, constraints, or how to obtain a valid ID, leaving the agent with limited guidance.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and specifies the resource as 'all structured findings from a stored review report'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_finding', which likely retrieves a single finding.

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 implies use after a review report is stored, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_finding'. It also does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond having a stored report.

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