propose_finding

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that proposals are safe (no destructive side effects), dedup behavior, and returns a dict with all keys. This provides clear behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 reasonably concise and uses bullet points for key details. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., repeating severity values in table and text).

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 8 parameters (5 required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description explains the return values but does not fully explain all parameters. It covers the core concept well but lacks completeness for a complex tool with many parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It defines allowed values for finding_class and severity but not for impact, category, statement, etc. This leaves gaps. More parameter context would improve the score.

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: 'Propose a gap or caveat finding.' It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_finding, dismiss_finding, and resolve_finding. The verb 'propose' and resource 'finding' are specific.

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 proposing is free and not surfaced until confirmed, guiding when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of siblings implies assessment. The added context of fingerprint dedup is helpful.

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