get_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the id is not found, whether it returns a full match or a summary, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the verb itself.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and economical, which is appropriate for a simple lookup 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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about when to use it relative to sibling tools and provides no parameter semantics. It is technically complete for a minimal get-by-id, but leaves the agent to guess details like how the id relates to a 'finding'.

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%. The description only says 'by id', which merely restates the parameter name 'finding_id' without adding any semantic meaning. It does not explain what a finding id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource (one scouted match) and lookup method (by id). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like list_matches (listing multiple) and approve/discard_match (mutating).

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 should use this tool when you have a specific finding id and want to inspect that match. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusions.

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