get_finding

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

The description clarifies the core behavior of retrieving a specific finding and implies retrieval of full details, but it does not go deeper into consequences, error behavior, or any read-only guarantees. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, yet it mostly restates the operation rather than adding richer behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core action front-loaded followed by an organized trigger list and a helpful alternative pointer. The trigger bullets are slightly repetitive but each line serves a practical purpose for an agent deciding when to invoke the 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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, when to use it, and how to obtain the required ID. It does not describe the exact return shape, but stating that it provides 'full details' is arguably sufficient for a simple getter, and the guidance to use search_findings fills the main contextual gap.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'finding_id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by indicating the ID comes from search results or list and by telling the agent to use search_findings if the ID is unknown, but it does not describe the ID format or naming convention in any detail.

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: 'Get a specific finding by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_findings, search_findings, and delete_finding, which have different actions and scopes.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section explicitly lists when to call the tool, such as when the user references a finding ID or when full details are needed. It also names search_findings as the alternative to use first when the ID is not already available, making the decision logic clear.

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