list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by enumerating the returned fields and noting the paginated envelope, plus the compliance-vs-operational distinction. It stops short of explaining pagination cursors or how the default target is resolved, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the '[READ]' marker and purpose, then filters, then the exclusion note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (rule_uuid, name, severity, category, finding_type, affected_objects_count) and noting the paginated envelope. The only gap is that pagination mechanics (cursor/next-page handling) and target fallback behavior are not spelled out, which is minor for this read tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: that filters are comma-separated strings and that omitting one matches all, and it names the returned fields (severity, category, finding_type) that correspond to the filter parameters. It does not document the target-resolution behavior or limit semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List Operations diagnostic findings'), scoped as optional-filter retrieval, and explicitly distinguishes itself from compliance benchmark tooling ('NOT compliance benchmark results'). An agent can separate it from siblings like list_alerts or investigate_alert from the text alone.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('review current diagnostic findings (misconfigurations, health rule hits) across the environment'), states the filter convention (comma-separated; omit a filter to match all), and routes the agent elsewhere when the task is hardening/compliance ('use vmware-harden'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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