Portfolio findings — fix once

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it defines 'open' (latest completed gate run per project and gate, not allowlisted), notes info findings are excluded, states an account-level key is required, and explains that a part named in readErrors is unknown rather than empty. This is exactly the behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (definition of open, auth requirement, return shape, sibling routing). It is dense and long, but not padded — the density is justified by a complex multi-part return.

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 output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ({ organizationId, groups, sdkSkew, holes, crossProject, readErrors }) and the readErrors caveat. Combined with the auth note and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single organizationId param is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only adds a cross-reference ('as for get_portfolio') rather than new syntax or meaning.

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 ('Return what to fix across the apps of one organization') and enumerates the three things returned: cross-project finding groups, SDK version skew, and integration holes. It is clearly distinguishable from list_gate_findings (single project) and get_portfolio (referenced by name for the orgId convention).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_gate_findings for per-project work and references get_portfolio for the organizationId convention, giving clear usage context. It does not state outright when NOT to use this tool, but the sibling references effectively cover the selection decision.

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