invariance_finding_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not contradict them and the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the operation itself; it does not explain not-found behavior, response format, or any open-world implications.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. The core operation and object are front-loaded, and additional behavioral details would likely not be needed for such a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 single-parameter read operation, this description is mostly complete: it names the resource)Skip? No, sorry. The context is adequately minimal. It could be slightly enhanced with a note about error behavior or suggestions for how to obtain the ID, but these are not essential for invoking 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the entire burden of explaining the parameter. 'by ID' does indicate that the 'id' parameter identifies the finding to retrieve, but it provides no additional context such as ID format, source, or expected value. The schema already supplies the type and required status.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('finding'), and the selection mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like invariance_finding_list and invariance_finding_update, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternives. It does not mention that this should be used when a finding ID is already known, nor does it indicate that browsing/searching should go through invariance_finding_list. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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