zeasm_list_findings

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

The description says 'Read-only' which matches the readOnlyHint annotation. It also adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns triage rows rather than raw SDK records, giving insight into the nature of the response. No contradictions 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 concise and to the point, consisting of a single sentence on functionality, one on behavior, and one on usage guidance. No redundant information is included, and the structure is clear and logical.

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 list operation, the description provides sufficient context by indicating the return format (triage rows) and listing the fields included. It also explains the difference from raw SDK records and connects to related tools. This covers the essential context without needing to explain output schema (which is absent).

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?

The description does not mention the parameters (org_id and query). However, the input schema provides a detailed description for the query parameter, including examples and important caveats about field names. The org_id parameter is straightforward and self-explanatory. Since the schema covers parameter semantics well, the description adds little value, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('EASM findings'), and the scope ('for an organization'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like zeasm_get_finding_details, zeasm_get_finding_evidence, and zeasm_get_finding_scan_output by mentioning that the returned id can be used with them.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Returns one triage row per finding... rather than the raw SDK record') and directs the user to use the returned id with specific related tools for further details, evidence, or scan output. This provides clear guidance on how it fits into a workflow.

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