tenable_list_findings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates a safe read operation, which the description's 'list' verb aligns with. The description adds the API method name (exports.vulns()) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or rate limits.

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 concise (two sentences plus an example) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be considered part of the description.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks explanations of filtering, pagination, return structure beyond the partial example, and how to interpret results. The context signals indicate high complexity that the description does not address.

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?

No parameter descriptions are provided in the text. The example hints at severity, state, and limit, but with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the meaning, valid values, or effect of the 8 parameters beyond their names and types.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists vulnerability findings using the Tenable exports API. It includes an example and mentions the modern API. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tenable_get_vulnerability_details or tenable_search_vulnerabilities, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to use, when not to use, or any prerequisites.

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