fsv_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the triage decision persists across future scans, that 'open' clears it, and that several statuses are excluded from the risk score, which gives useful mutation context; it does not discuss permissions or conflict behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core action and persistence behavior, then gives status semantics, then finding identification. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant restatement.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the main operational semantics well. It is slightly incomplete because the optional note parameter and exact scan_id role are not described, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds strong meaning for 'status' by listing allowed values and effects, and for 'finding' by noting id or fingerprint identification, but it does not document the optional 'note' parameter or explicitly clarify 'scan_id'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: record a triage decision for a finding, and it explains that the decision persists across future scans. That is much clearer than a generic update tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as fsv_fixes or fsv_scan.

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 usage by saying the finding is identified from a scan result and by explaining status effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fsv_fixes. It provides context without clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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