list_duplicate_findings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the read-like listing behavior and the optional product scoping; nothing is said about pagination, result limits, required permissions, or what happens when the product is unknown. An output schema exists, which relieves it of explaining return values, but the remaining gaps are material for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource stated first and the optional scoping clause attached. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and scoping. The unresolved identifier format for 'product' is the only meaningful shortfall.

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 description coverage is 0% – the single 'product' parameter has no description and is typed as a plain string. The description only says it scopes to one product, without indicating whether the value is an ID, name, slug, or host, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('findings DefectDojo has marked as duplicates'), with the duplicate qualifier implicitly separating it from severity-based siblings like list_critical_findings and list_findings_by_severity. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'optionally scoped to one product' implies when the parameter is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to a sibling such as list_findings_by_severity for non-duplicate queries. Usage must be inferred.

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