Export Findings as SARIF

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the default status is open findings 'so the export reflects the current posture,' and project context is required. No contradictions or hidden side effects are apparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every sentence adds value: format, intended consumers, default behavior, and prerequisite context. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter export tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it identifies the output format, the scope, the default filter, and the required context. No output schema exists, but the SARIF document nature is stated directly.

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 already fully documents the single optional 'status' parameter with valid values and its 'open' default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that default, so it does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Export'), the resource ('the active project's security findings'), and the output format (SARIF 2.1.0). It also explains the tool's purpose for CI ingestion, which distinguishes it from other security-finding tools like get_security_findings.

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 gives clear context: the tool exports security findings as SARIF, defaults to open findings, and requires project context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use for SARIF consumers is clear enough.

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