sourcery_get_finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully characterizes the payload ('full record incl. source snippet and dependency graph'), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when an ID is missing, or whether the fetch is read-only.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the return-content detail parenthesized. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-record getter with no output schema, no annotations, and one parameter, the description covers the return payload but omits the identifier semantics and any usage context. Adequate but noticeably thin on the parameter side.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description makes no reference to finding_id at all — not its format, where to obtain it, or that it is required. With one undocumented integer parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single security issue'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling sourcery_list_findings. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise positively disambiguates its role in the family.

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 description implies you call this when you already have one finding's identifier rather than needing a list, but it states no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as sourcery_list_findings.

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