get_remediation_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that only open findings (status detected/fail/open) are returned, filtered by severity with a default list, and that passed/dismissed findings are excluded. It also mentions bypassing the broken PDF renderer.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by context and filtering details.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete, explaining return content and filtering. It could be slightly improved by describing the output JSON structure, but overall adequate.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of 'appRef' and 'assessmentRef', and that 'impactTypes' are severities with defaults, augmenting the schema's descriptions.

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 tool pulls findings that need remediation for an assessment as structured JSON. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_assessment_pdf' and 'generate_remediation_pdf' by mentioning it bypasses the broken UI PDF renderer and queries GraphQL directly.

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 explains when to use it: to get structured JSON of open findings requiring remediation, excluding passed/dismissed. It implies alternatives for PDF output but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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