zeasm_list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it returns a summarized triage row rather than the raw SDK record, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose additional traits like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—no wasted words.

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), input schema with two parameters, no output schema, and related sibling tools, the description covers the tool's purpose, return format, and downstream usage. It is slightly lacking in explaining potential limitations like pagination or permissions, but overall sufficient for a list 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 50% (query parameter described in schema). The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter; org_id is required but not elaborated, and query already has a detailed schema description.

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 lists EASM findings for an organization, specifies the returned fields (id, category, type, status, risk level/score, impacted asset, first/last seen), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns a triage row rather than a raw SDK record and that the ID can be used with other specific tools.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is read-only and instructs how to use the returned ID with zeasm_get_finding_details, zeasm_get_finding_evidence, or zeasm_get_finding_scan_output for more details. It implies when not to use it (if raw SDK record is needed), but does not explicitly exclude other alternatives within the sibling tools.

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