get_security_findings

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

Explicitly declares 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, no mention of authorization needs, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is somewhat minimal.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains limit. No extraneous words, front-loaded with core information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter meaning. Could mention error handling or range validation, but overall sufficient.

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?

The only parameter 'limit' is well-described: 'max number of recent events to return (1-500)'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which has 0% coverage and only specifies type and default.

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?

Clearly states it returns active security policy and recent security events (blocked IPs, threat scores, pipeline findings). Distinguishes from siblings like evaluate_deploy_gate or get_agent_status.

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. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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