List findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the taxonomy of finding types, but says nothing about ordering, volume, pagination, or the dismissed-filter behavior beyond what the schema carries.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering hint second. No filler 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition gives enough to invoke it correctly. It is slightly thin on how results relate to the summary/dismiss/rescan siblings.

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% and each parameter is documented with its allowed values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that severity/scope can narrow results, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (engine findings) and enumerates the finding categories (privacy, schema, performance, lint), which helps an agent understand what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_findings_summary, rescan_findings, or dismiss_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?

'Use severity or scope to narrow' gives implied narrowing guidance, but the description never says when to choose this tool over get_findings_summary (aggregate) or rescan_findings (refresh). Usage context is only implied.

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