list_security_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether results are paginated (the 'limit' parameter suggests they might be), default sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality upfront. Every word earns its place: 'List security findings' establishes the purpose, and 'with optional filtering by types, severities, sources, and status' adds necessary context without redundancy. No wasted words or 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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While concise, it doesn't address critical context: response format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how the various filter parameters interact. The agent would need to guess about the return structure and operational characteristics despite the tool's complexity.

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?

The description mentions filtering by 'types, severities, sources, and status' which maps to some parameters (types, severities, source_kinds/source_types/source_names/source_namespaces, status). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, precedence, or provide usage examples.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('security findings'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also mentions optional filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_threat_vectors' or 'list_k8s_resource_misconfigs' that might overlap in security domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the security/compliance domain (like list_threat_vectors, list_k8s_resource_misconfigs, list_image_vulnerabilities), there's no indication of scope boundaries, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage context from tool names alone.

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