list_findings

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a minor behavioral cue with 'current' and 'bounded', suggesting a limited view of the present state. It does not explain pagination, ordering, or whether results are stable across calls, but the annotations carry the main safety profile.

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 sentence with no filler and starts with the action verb. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity sacrifices clarity and forces the agent to rely on the name and schema.

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 paginated list tool, the description does not explain cursor-based navigation, what a 'finding projection' contains, or how this relates to get_finding and record_finding. The output schema and annotations help, but the description alone leaves important context 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%, and the description does not explain the limit or cursor parameters. 'Bounded' weakly maps to limit, but cursor and pagination semantics are entirely absent. The schema provides numeric constraints but not the meaning needed to use the parameters effectively.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'findings', which broadly distinguishes it from get_finding and record_finding. However, the phrase 'bounded current finding projections' is vague and does not define what a projection is or what 'current' means, leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_finding retrieves a single finding or that record_finding creates one. The only usage signal is the generic verb 'list', which is implicit rather than explicit.

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