Close Finding

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

No annotations provided; the description carries full burden. It does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., whether the finding becomes inactive), or behavior if already closed. Only the allowed statuses are listed, which are already in the schema.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing statuses inline is acceptable), but conciseness is achieved without sacrificing clarity.

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 no output schema, 4 required parameters, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or preconditions for mutation. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this definition alone.

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 low (25%). The description adds useful context for findingId (references list_findings/get_finding) and enumerates statuses, but version and reason lack semantic explanation. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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's purpose: closing a Codex Security Cloud finding with specific statuses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reopen_finding by specifying the closing action and listing the valid status categories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reopen_finding. The description does not mention prerequisites, context for each status, or scenarios where close_finding is appropriate.

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