list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the terms 'bounded' and 'current', hinting at limited scope and temporal state, but does not explain cursor behavior or what exactly constitutes a 'projection'. With annotations present, the added value is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 of five words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the jargon 'finding projections' may obscure clarity. This is concise but not optimally clear, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure is presumably documented, but the description lacks essential context about pagination, what 'current' means, and the nature of a 'finding projection'. With sibling tools like get_finding and record_finding, more guidance on relationships and result scope is needed for complete understanding.

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. The word 'bounded' vaguely references the limit, but cursor semantics and their role in pagination are entirely absent, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 starts with the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'finding projections', which clearly indicates a listing operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_finding (single) and record_finding (create), though the term 'projections' is somewhat vague and not explicitly contrasted with related list tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_finding or record_finding. It does not mention pagination context, exclusions, or any relationship to other listing tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the name.

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