get_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds material context beyond them: no claim or ownership is required, recovery works after a restart or for an orchestrator that did not author the findings, unknown ids produce a structured not_found error, and the live claim token is deliberately withheld. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before deciding to call it.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then routing guidance, then caveats; every sentence carries information. The field enumeration is long but serves to tell the agent whether the payload is sufficient, though the sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned body fields and the error case. It omits any explanation of the as_agent parameter, which is the only notable completeness gap for a simple two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies FindingId semantics implicitly ('by id') and that unknown ids trigger not_found, but the second parameter as_agent is never mentioned or explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a real 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 and resource ('Retrieve the full body of a single finding by id') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It explicitly contrasts with claim_next_finding_for_verification and claim_next_finding_for_fix, which return only a stub, making selection unambiguous.

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 an explicit trigger: after a claim tool returns only id/task/status/severity, call this to fetch the auditor-authored body needed to reproduce the issue. It also states a when-not/alternative condition indirectly ('No claim is required: this is a plain read') and directs the agent to a claim tool when a live claim token is needed.

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