triage_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it offers nothing beyond the tool name: no error behavior, no not-found semantics, no auth or scoping details, and no response hints. For a tool that reads a single record, the description is minimally sufficient at best and provides no value over renaming.

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?

Seven words, one idea, no filler. Every piece — verb, object, and identification method — carries semantic weight and the purpose is front-loaded. This is textbook, maximally tight writing for a trivial 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 tool with just one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (so no need to document return values), the description covers the essentials. The only gap is clarifying how this differs from triage_list and triage_summary given the sibling set, but for a simple get-by-ID this is fairly complete.

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 100% schema description coverage ("The finding ID to look up"), the schema fully documents the sole parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Get a single finding by ID" uses a specific verb (Get), a clear resource (finding), and scoping (single, by ID). The word "single" implicitly contrasts with the sibling triage_list, though it never explicitly names an alternative or explains the distinction, keeping it just below the best examples.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated. From the description and the required finding_id parameter, an agent can infer this tool is for fetching one record when an ID is known, but there is no "when to use this vs. triage_list/triage_summary" guidance or any exclusion criteria. This lands at baseline 'implied usage.'

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