list_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: the required 'findings:read' scope and the masking of finding detail below CONFIDENTIAL. It does not mention pagination, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, scope, filter options, and a masking caveat in three short clauses. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, filtering, and a confidentiality behavior. Minor gaps are whether status and severity can be combined and what happens when no filters are supplied.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does by enumerating allowed values for status ('open', 'closed') and severity ('critical', 'high', 'medium', 'low'). It does not clarify whether filters combine or how to request 'all' findings, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies audit findings as the resource and, combined with the tool name 'list_findings', clearly implies a listing operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools about controls and evidence, though it could be more explicit by starting with 'Lists...'.

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 provides concrete usage context: retrieve audit findings and filter by status or severity, plus a required scope. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over obvious siblings.

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