list_findings_by_severity

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. The word 'actionable' hints at a filtering behavior but is never defined, and nothing is said about pagination, result size, permission requirements, or what 'actionable' excludes -- a meaningful omission for a listing 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the severity vocabulary is placed inline where it is most useful. It is efficiently sized, though brevity here comes partly from omission rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, which relieves some burden. Still, for a three-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves the optional filters and the 'actionable' qualifier unexplained.

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% across three parameters. The description usefully enumerates severity values that the schema does not constrain with an enum, but 'product' and 'include_duplicates' remain entirely undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('List actionable findings') plus the scoping dimension ('of a given severity') and enumerates the accepted severity values. An agent immediately knows the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the overlapping sibling list_critical_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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite list_critical_findings covering an overlapping case (Critical severity). The agent must infer routing on its own.

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