telivy_get_finding

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. It only says the tool retrieves details; it does not describe the return format, what happens when a slug is invalid or missing, permissions, or any rate-limit 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, resource, lookup mechanism, and examples efficiently.

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 one-parameter get-by-slug tool, this is mostly sufficient to invoke it. However, it does not explain what 'top-level finding details' contain or how this finding type relates to sibling finding tools, and there is no output schema to fill that 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 already fully describes the single slug parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete slug examples, TYPO_SQUATTING and PERSONAL_EMAILS, which clarify the expected format beyond just 'Finding slug.'

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 operation, 'get', on a specific resource, 'top-level finding details', keyed by slug, with concrete examples. The 'top-level' qualifier also helps distinguish it from external-scan finding tools.

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 'top-level' wording and slug examples imply when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives such as telivy_get_external_scan_finding or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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