get_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is 'Read', indicating it is non-destructive, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, error handling, or any side effects. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read nature.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant details. It is highly efficient while remaining informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read', and the deterministic ID is mentioned. However, without annotations, there is no explicit safety declaration or guidance on alternative usage, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The phrase 'by deterministic id' adds meaning to finding_id, clarifying that it is a stable identifier rather than a search or fuzzy match. This provides useful context beyond the raw 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 tool's function: 'Read one structured finding by deterministic id.' The verb 'Read' and the resource 'structured finding' make it specific, and 'by deterministic id' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_findings. It fully captures the tool's purpose.

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 deterministic finding ID, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_findings or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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