get_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares this is a plain read, that no claim is needed, that it works even for orchestrators that didn't author the findings (or resumed after restart), that unknown ids yield a structured not_found error, and that the live claim token is deliberately withheld. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and then routing rationale. Dense and largely waste-free, though slightly long for a single-parameter read 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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (severity, symptom, root cause, reproduction steps, status, claim holder, etc.) fully covers what an agent needs to know about the response. Call correctness and error behavior are both addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two parameters. It clarifies that the id identifies a finding and describes the not_found behavior for bad ids, but says nothing about as_agent. Partial compensation, adequate but incomplete.

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 and resource ('Retrieve the full body of a single finding by id') and enumerates the returned fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from claim_next_finding_for_verification and claim_next_finding_for_fix, which return only id/task/status/severity.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('call get_finding to fetch the auditor-authored body a verifier or fixer subagent needs to reproduce the issue'), states the precondition is absent ('No claim is required'), and names the alternatives that return thinner payloads.

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