get_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only retrieval operation. However, it omits details about pagination, ordering, default filter behavior (returns all findings?), and any rate limits or data freshness considerations.

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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant phrases. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description does not mention the return format (e.g., list of finding objects with certain fields). Also lacks information on default limit behavior (schema says default 100, but description does not surface this). Given the simplicity of a filtered retrieval tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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% and includes descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only a summarizing list of filter fields, which is useful but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve' and resource 'past security findings from the audit database', and lists the optional filter dimensions (type, severity, audit ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_file' which perform active scanning rather than querying historical records.

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 implies the tool is for querying past findings with filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as 'audit_log' or 'list_false_positives'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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