Search Findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that severity and excludeTagPrefix are applied client-side as a fallback, which is a key behavioral trait. It also hints at pagination behavior. However, it omits details on rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with large result sets, but the disclosed information is significant.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and following with critical usage details. Every sentence provides value, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is highly efficient.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only a few aspects: client-side filtering for severity/tags and pagination via fetchAll. It does not explain afterKey, pageSize, maxPages, or the meaning of tags/status, which are critical for effective use. The description is too sparse given the 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 input schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions severity, excludeTagPrefix, and fetchAll, but does not explain their meaning, format, or relation to other parameters like afterKey, pageSize, or tags. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 is for searching/filtering ArmorCode findings, with specific verb ('Search/filter') and resource ('findings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific actions (e.g., accept_risk, add_comment) and from armorcode_get_finding (single finding). The mention of pagination with fetchAll adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on using fetchAll for pagination and notes that severity and excludeTagPrefix are applied client-side when server filters fail. This gives clear context for when to use these features. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like armorcode_get_finding for a single finding.

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