get-security-finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the legacy data model and required scope, which are useful, but it does not disclose that the operation is read-only or describe potential error states, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose (verb+resource) and adds necessary notes in the second sentence without extraneous information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the return format, explain what 'legacy data model' means, or provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and result.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no documentation. The description adds 'by ID' but does not explain the format, constraints, or valid values for 'findingId'. The description adds very little beyond stating the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'a legacy CSPM/CIEM finding by ID', and identifies the product area as 'posture_management'. It differentiates from siblings like 'search-security-findings' by focusing on a single finding retrieval.

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 usage when you have a specific finding ID by mentioning 'by ID', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'search-security-findings'. It provides context like the legacy data model and required scope, but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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