correlate_findings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It specifies the output (attack chains, risk score, remediation recommendations) and mentions required input fields, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it makes network calls) or limitations (e.g., what happens if findings are malformed). This is acceptable but not rich.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are concise and informative, with no superfluous content. Every line adds value for the agent.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: input format, processing logic, and output. It lacks details on edge cases or handling of partial data, but remains sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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 is minimal, containing only an array of arbitrary objects. The description compensates by specifying that the array contains Finding objects and enumerating expected fields (severity, owasp_category, cve_ids, tool). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, guiding correct invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Correlate multiple findings to identify attack chains and compound risks.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which primarily perform individual scans or checks. The opening sentence makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool analyzes findings from multiple tools to identify patterns and compound risks, implying it should be used after collecting findings from various scanners. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine suitability.

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