findings_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: returns finding summaries with specific fields in a 'paginated envelope,' filter behavior (comma-separated, omit to match all), a default limit of 50, and the distinction from compliance findings. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It begins with a bolded [READ] tag and a clear purpose, then adds usage context, return details, and an exclusion note. The Args list is clean and scannable. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate given five parameters and the need for behavioral nuance.

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 read-only list/filter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format (paginated envelope with specific fields), and an explicit mention of an alternative tool for compliance. It is self-contained and gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke 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 carry the full burden. It does so effectively by documenting every parameter in the Args section: severities with an example ('CRITICAL,WARNING'), categories, finding_types, limit with default, and target ('from config; default when omitted'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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's function: 'List Operations diagnostic findings, optionally filtered.' It specifies the resource (diagnostic findings), the verb (List), and the scope ('across the environment'). It also distinguishes this tool from compliance-related tools by explicitly noting 'NOT compliance benchmark results.'

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to review current diagnostic findings (misconfigurations, health rule hits) across the environment.' It also gives an explicit alternative and exclusion: 'for hardening/compliance use vmware-harden.' This is clear and actionable.

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