List Ignored Findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context that it only reads local config and never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN, which aligns with and reinforces the annotations. No contradictions. It provides additional behavioral insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second clarifies its read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and thorough annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and its side effects (none on external systems). No additional details are needed.

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 has zero parameters, so semantic coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 lists locally ignored audit finding fingerprints. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_ignore_finding and setup_unignore_finding, which mutate state, by specifying it only reads. The verb 'list' and resource 'ignored audit finding fingerprints' are specific and unambiguous.

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 it's safe to call anytime because it only reads local config and never mutates external systems. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the context from siblings suggests it's useful before mutating ignored findings. Could be improved by mentioning it's a precursor to ignore/unignore operations.

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