get_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates every returned field (severity P0–P3, title, problem, file, line, status, blocking, comment_id, comment_url, agent_prompt) and defines the comment_status enum values plus the auth prerequisite (GITHUB_TOKEN or gh auth login) and the recovery path for each failure state.

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 in the first sentence, followed by the return-field glossary, then the workflow. The workflow portion is dense and partly belongs to the reply tool, but every element is informative and nothing is empty padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return contract and safety context itself — and it does, including field meanings, severity ordering, error statuses, auth requirements, and the corrective loop. Nothing an agent needs to call and use it correctly is missing.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the repo format ('owner/name') clearly; pr_number is self-evident as an integer, leaving only a minor gap.

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 (list) plus the exact resource (MergeSafe findings on the latest review of a pull request), and the scope ('latest review') makes it clearly distinct from siblings like reply or request_review. An agent can identify what this returns without opening the schema.

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 spells out the intended loop that follows the call (check blocking findings, apply agent_prompt fix, test, commit/push, then call reply with 'Fixed in <sha>' on comment_id), which effectively names the alternative tool and the trigger for it. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or handling non-blocking findings.

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