get-security-finding

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by mentioning the legacy data model and required scope ('security_monitoring_findings_read'). However, it lacks details on potential errors, idempotency, or response structure, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, legacy model, and required scope. It does not explicitly state the return format, but this is implied. Adequate for the complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'findingId' is the ID of a legacy CSPM/CIEM finding. This gives context beyond the bare parameter name in the schema.

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'), the resource ('legacy CSPM/CIEM finding'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-posture-findings' and 'search-security-findings' by specifying retrieval of a single finding by identifier.

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 for fetching a specific finding by ID and notes the legacy data model, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Siblings like 'search-security-findings' are not mentioned.

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