dismiss_finding

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (dict with keys) but does not describe side effects, such as whether the finding becomes permanently suppressed, if it can be reversed, or any authentication or rate-limit requirements. The 'gated' reference is vague.

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 concise (two short paragraphs plus a return format block). It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, the return format could be integrated more elegantly, and the 'GATED' note could be slightly less cryptic.

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 3 parameters, no annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return values but fails to document parameters or behavioral context. For a mutation tool that modifies state, this is a significant gap.

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 3 parameters (finding_id, reason, evidence_refs) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning, purpose, or usage of any parameter other than implying that reason and evidence_refs are optional. The return format mentions only finding_id, but this is insufficient for proper 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 the tool's purpose: 'Dismiss a finding as invalid/irrelevant.' The verb 'dismiss' and the target 'finding' are specific, and the description distinguishes this from siblings like confirm_finding and resolve_finding by specifying the action context.

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 mentions that the tool is 'GATED exactly like confirm_finding,' which gives a hint about access or permission constraints. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to dismiss vs. confirm), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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