False Positive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions a parameter default ('dryRun defaults true') without explaining the tool's side effects, required permissions, or state changes.

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 excessively short—two fragments rather than a complete sentence. While brevity can be a virtue, here it omits essential information, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is severely incomplete, failing to explain the tool's effect on a finding, the meaning of 'dryRun', or the expected response. This level of under-specification renders the tool almost unusable without external documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It adds meaning for only one parameter (dryRun's default). The other three parameters (findingId, notes, reason) receive no explanation beyond the schema's type and required status.

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 'False Positive. dryRun defaults true.' is nearly a tautology with the title, providing minimal clarification of the tool's specific action. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'suppress_finding' or 'confirm_finding'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for similar actions (e.g., accept_risk, mitigate_finding), the absence of usage context is a critical gap.

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