Validate Findings

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

The description reveals important behavior: validator runs in parallel, only reproducible PoCs lead to confirmation, and non-confirmed findings are downgraded with reasons recorded. It also signals approval requirements and state changes, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation.

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 relatively concise, fitting in two sentences, and front-loads the core action. The bracketed 'EXPLOIT — requires human approval' is slightly redundant with the later mention, but it doesn't bloat the text. Overall it is well-structured and scannable.

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?

While the outcome behavior is described, key context is missing: the meaning and use of the input parameters, how findings are selected, what constitutes a 'minimal PoC', and any preconditions. The description covers the core process but leaves out essential operational details, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 provides no information about the three parameters (finding_ids, max_findings, min_severity). An agent has no guidance on how to set these or what values are expected. This is a severe gap.

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 tool's function: 'Prove candidate findings with minimal PoCs' and specifies the exact outcome ('confirmed' or 'downgraded to needs manual review'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the only automatic route to a confirmed 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?

It explicitly mentions the tool is the only automatic route to confirmed findings, giving a strong usage signal. It also notes human approval is required, which sets expectations for when it should be invoked. However, it doesn't contrast with alternatives like triage_findings beyond that single statement.

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