list_remediation_task_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety burden is light. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that exactly one key parameter must be supplied, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default 25-row cap, or what a returned link row contains.

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 tight sentences: the resource and backing table come first, then each parameter's effect, then the exclusivity rule. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, both argument modes, and the mutual-exclusivity constraint. The remaining gap is output shape (which link fields come back), which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the relationship direction each parameter traverses (remediation_task → member VIs; vulnerable_item → parent Remediation Tasks). This tells an agent what to expect per argument, not just accepted ID formats.

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: listing the VI ↔ Remediation Task links in the sn_vul_m2m_vul_group_item m2m table. That is clearly distinct from list_vulnerable_items, list_remediation_tasks, and add_vi_to_remediation_task, though none of those siblings are named for contrast.

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?

Explains both query directions explicitly – pass remediation_task to get member Vulnerable Items, or vulnerable_item to get the Remediation Tasks it belongs to – and constrains it with 'Exactly one of the two.' No guidance on when to prefer this over the plain list_* tools for the same entities.

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