Detalle de un hallazgo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the payload includes source code around the affected line, which is real value with no output schema present. It says nothing about what happens when the finding does not exist, whether code context can be missing, or how run_id affects resolution.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is returned (full detail plus code context) and ends with the decision it enables. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the response shape and purpose. It leaves a meaningful gap around the optional run_id and ID uniqueness, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly in multi-run scenarios.

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 coverage is 67%: finding_id and context_lines are documented in the schema, and the description's mention of 'código alrededor de la línea afectada' loosely reinforces context_lines. The optional run_id is undocumented in both places, and the description does not explain the relationship between run_id and finding_id (e.g. whether F-001 style IDs are unique across runs).

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 resource and qualifier: full detail of a single finding, including the code around the affected line. That clearly separates it from list/query siblings like findings_query, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 conveyed indirectly through the stated goal ('para decidir si es explotable o falso positivo'), implying it belongs in a triage/validation step before calling finding_triage. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary with findings_query.

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