ghostsecurity_get_repository_findings

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is extremely brief ('Get'). It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description carries the full burden but adds no 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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is almost too minimal, bordering on under-specification. It earns points for brevity but loses some for lack of structure.

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 tool has 8 parameters with enums and pagination, yet the description provides no context about how they work, filter behavior, or output format. With no output schema, the description should compensate but fails completely.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 gets security findings for a specific repository, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ghostsecurity_get_finding (single) and ghostsecurity_get_findings (likely all findings) through the inclusion of 'repository' in the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghostsecurity_get_findings or ghostsecurity_count_findings. The description provides no context for selection.

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