Get ASM findings by assessment ID

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, response format, data volume) beyond the fact that it returns all findings for an assessment. It is consistent with annotations but not additive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not mention what a 'finding' contains, whether results are paginated, or how they relate to other ASM outputs. It is complete enough for basic usage but lacks detail.

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 clarify the parameter. It refers to 'a specific ASM assessment,' giving some meaning to assessment_id, but it does not explain the ID format, source, or prerequisite steps. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tool's action ('Get all findings') and resource ('specific ASM assessment'), using a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings and cymulate_asm_get_technical by emphasizing the assessment ID.

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 implies usage when one has an assessment ID and wants its findings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_latest_findings or get_technical. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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