create_finding

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes rate-limiting and write scope, and discloses default values for active and verified. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., duplicate handling) or error conditions, and the return format is vague ('Returns JSON with created finding').

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 compact: one sentence and a list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancies (listing args both in prose and inline) but overall efficient. Could be more structured with separate sections.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, no schema descriptions) and existing output schema, the description covers essential usage: required fields, defaults, return type. Some gaps remain (e.g., response structure, error cases) but adequate for basic 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing all parameters with constraints (e.g., test_id > 0, severity values, defaults). This adds meaning beyond the schema structure, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining what test_id references).

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 ('Create a new finding') and resource ('a finding'). It lists required arguments, distinguishing it as a creation tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_finding or close_finding, though the name implies creation.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires write scope. Rate-limited.') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_finding_note or update_finding. No exclusions or explicit context for selection.

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