Get Advanced Scenarios findings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping constraint that the assessment is 'specific' (not all assessments), which is useful context. However, it does not provide additional behavioral details such as pagination, authorization requirements, or return format, so it adds only marginal value beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and resource clearly, which is ideal for a tool description.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is adequate and covers the core purpose. It could benefit from noting what type of data is returned or that this is specifically for findings, but the name and description already imply this. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 one parameter (assessment_id) with zero descriptive coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'specific Advanced Scenarios assessment' clarifies that the ID refers to an Advanced Scenarios assessment, but it does not explain the format, origin, or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, making this minimally adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('findings from a specific Advanced Scenarios assessment'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cymulate_findings_search or cymulate_advanced_get_assessment_result, which may also return finding-like data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that it works with a specific assessment ID, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for other finding types. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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