list_violations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only, local DB query, no network calls, no pagination, sorting order, output fields, and empty array return. Covers all key behavioral aspects.

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?

Well-organized: purpose first, then parameter, then output behavior, then prerequisite. No redundant sentences. Efficient use of text.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description already details the output fields and return type. All relevant behaviors and context (e.g., file path, sorting) are covered. Prerequisite and connection to sibling tool 'get_remediation' provided.

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?

Input schema has one optional parameter 'severity' with only type info. Description adds the exact valid values ('critical','high','medium','low','info'), behavior when omitted (returns all), and that it filters exactly one. Greatly enhances parameter understanding.

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?

Description starts with '[READ]' and states 'List compliance violations recorded by the most recent scan snapshot'. It clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_target' (which runs a scan) and 'get_remediation' (which provides fix plans).

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?

Prerequisite mentioned: 'run scan_target first'. Explains behavior when no scan exists (returns []). Provides guidance on severity filter. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings like 'list_baselines' or 'list_drift_events'.

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