Get Security Findings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: findings are ordered by severity, the list omits the raw evidence blob to stay small, passing findingId returns the full evidence (request/response), and project context is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core action, filter options, ordering, single-finding behavior, and a key precondition. There is no repetition or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the list-versus-detail modes, ordering, evidence handling, and project context. Remaining details like filter enum values and pagination bounds are fully handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the list mode purposely omits the raw evidence for size and that findingId switches to a full-detail mode including that evidence. This enriches the findingId parameter beyond the schema's 'filters are ignored' note.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('security findings' for the active project), then details optional filters and the distinct single-finding retrieval mode via findingId. This separates it from siblings like export_findings_sarif and get_finding_remediation without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool lists findings with optional filters and can fetch a full finding with raw evidence when findingId is passed. It also notes the 'Requires project context' precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related security tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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