get_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the purpose statement; 'full details' describes the output rather than disclosing behaviors such as auth requirements, errors, or pagination. 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the only parameter is documented in a compact, scannable format.

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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the one missing invocation detail: where to obtain finding_id and what format it takes. Nothing else is required for an agent to call 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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It defines finding_id as the ID from scan_project / list_findings and provides a concrete example format (SS-3F9A2C1), which is exactly what an agent needs to supply the required parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving full details for one finding, and enumerates content categories (impact, fix guidance, code context, references). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list-oriented tools by emphasizing 'one finding' and by referencing scan_project / list_findings as the source of the ID.

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 gives clear usage context by noting that finding_id comes from scan_project / list_findings, implying the tool is used after those tools. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the singular scope and the referenced parent tools make the intended workflow clear.

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