Findings List

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a compact table by default and full records with detail=True, plus a note about token cost. This enriches behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the output detail and a usage tip. It is concise, well-structured, and every word adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description needn't explain return values in depth, but it does describe the two output modes. It provides useful context about token usage and planning. Missing some parameter specifics, but overall adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'status and severity' (referring to status and min_severity) and 'detail' for full records, but does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 purpose: 'List findings' with optional filters for status and severity. It distinguishes itself from more specialized siblings like triage_findings or finding_detail, though not explicitly. The core function is 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?

The description provides a usage tip about the detail parameter ('prefer the compact form while planning') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other sibling tools that also list findings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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