Finding Note

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

The description implies a write operation ('attach') but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. The only behavioral detail is that notes appear in the report, but the contradiction invalidates the annotation and the description does not clarify.

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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action, but it is minimal to the point of lacking necessary detail.

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 contradictory annotation and missing parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the write nature, prerequisites, or return behavior, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameter names (finding_id, note) are self-explanatory, but the description does not specify formats, constraints, or how the note is used beyond appearing in the report.

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 the action: attach a note to a finding. It is specific and unambiguous, and no sibling tool performs this exact function, so it stands apart.

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 like finding_detail or validate_findings. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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