reports_ingest_sarif

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes well beyond them: imported results stay candidates with origin external, add no APSA coverage, are linked to APSA findings of a related weakness at the same location, and that result text is untrusted data. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that begins with the action and then adds constraints. Dense but earns its sentences; could benefit from slight separation of the security note but is not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the behavioral effects are well covered. However, for a write tool with 0% parameter coverage, the meaning and format of path, tool, and sarif_root are left entirely unexplained.

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% across 4 parameters. The description only implicitly references report_id as the source for the new report and says nothing about path, tool, or the sarif_root default, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: import SARIF 2.1.0 results into a new report derived from report_id. Names concrete source tool examples (Android Lint, CodeQL, Semgrep) and clearly distinguishes this ingestion action from sibling read/list/compare tools.

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 context of when this applies (importing an external tool's SARIF output) is implied and the examples aid recognition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like reports_get or reports_history, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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