list_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains the return format ('items' and 'pagination') and includes a historical note about the has_jira parameter. However, it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or default sorting behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and parameter summary. It is fairly concise given the 17 parameters, though the DOM-19 note on has_jira is slightly tangential for a typical user.

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?

With no annotations and high parameter count, the description covers all filter semantics and return structure. It addresses the complexity well, but lacks guidance on pagination default or total count.

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 details each parameter with types, constraints (e.g., '>0' for IDs, '1-100' for limit), allowed values for severity, and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'List findings with optional filters,' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (findings). It distinguishes from siblings like get_finding (single) and create_finding (write operation).

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 lists filters but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_finding for a single finding or list_tests for tests. The usage context is implied but not contrasted.

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