get_finding_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states one behavioral fact (no local file path) but omits details such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. The single sentence provides minimal transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks necessary detail, making it less effective than a more structured yet concise description.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide adequate context. It does not mention output structure, usage prerequisites, or how it relates to the sibling tool. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The description does not explain the 'finding_id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is completely opaque. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema's property name implies.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('查看证据元数据' - view evidence metadata) and adds an important exclusion (does not return local file path). While it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by implication, it does not explicitly mention the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'run_research_intelligence' or in what scenarios it is appropriate. The description lacks usage context.

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