chain_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys useful behavioral traits: input must be pre-verified, output is multi-step and publication-grade. But it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether saveToWorkspace persists files), return format, or what happens when findings cannot be chained — gaps that matter for a synthesis tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 that names the action, the input class, and the output, reinforced by two illustrative chain examples. Every element earns its place with 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?

The core purpose is well covered, but for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits practical details an agent needs: what format the chain artifact takes, whether it persists to the workspace, and behavior on unchainable findings. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, notably leaving the object vs. JSON-string fallback relationship (findings/findingsJson, candidates/candidatesJson) unexplained, though that is not the description's obligation at this coverage level.

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 action (synthesize verified findings) and a specific resource (multi-step, publication-grade exploit chains), and grounds it with concrete examples (Traversal + Write -> Persistent RCE; Header Injection -> Agent Escape). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_finding (single-finding verification), generate_poc, and generate_report — nothing else in the sibling set composes findings into chains.

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 qualifier 'verified findings' implies use after verify_finding, and the examples clarify the intended composition scenario. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives — an agent must infer that this is for multi-finding composition rather than for generating a single POC or report.

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