list_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that it returns a list of finding objects. The phrase 'Findings, optionally filtered...' is a noun phrase and could be read ambiguously; it never says 'returns' or 'lists'. Pagination behavior is implied only through the cursor/limit parameters, not described. For a simple list, transparency is 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?

The description is two sentences and gets straight to the point. The core action and the key filter are front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler, though it could expand slightly without losing efficiency.

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 list tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential filtering behavior and the data-generation nuance (candidates). It does not explicitly state that the tool returns a paginated list or describe the response shape, which an agent might benefit from given the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is adequate but leaves the return structure to inference.

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 75% (limit, cursor, engagement all have descriptions). The description adds value by enumerating valid status values, which the schema does not. However, it does not clarify the default behavior when status is omitted (presumably all statuses) or provide any additional context on limit/cursor beyond what the schema already states. The contribution is modest.

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 uses a clear verb ('list') and resource ('findings'), and includes a specific filtering dimension (status) with enumerated values. It stands apart from get_finding (single item), update_finding (modification), and other list tools that target different resources (tasks, engagements, entities).

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?

It explains when to use the status filter and notes that automated extraction only creates candidates, which is useful for selecting status values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_finding for a single result or update_finding for changes, nor does it state that this is the go-to for listing all findings. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives.

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