read_finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the response includes notes and sources, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when the finish does not exist, permission requirements, or the size/shape of the payload.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but structurally it is efficient and readable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the one required parameter is undocumented, so the description must do more than it does. Knowing the result includes notes and sources is helpful, but the identifier format and failure behavior an agent needs before calling are missing.

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 single required parameter "finish" has 0% schema description coverage — the schema only supplies the title "Finish". The description never clarifies whether this is a name, slug, or opaque identifier, nor any format or matching rules, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

"One finish in full, with its notes and sources" states a specific resource (a single finish) and scope (full detail including notes and sources), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_finishes. It does not explicitly name that sibling or check_finish, but the singular-and-complete framing is enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one finish" versus a list tool suggests this is the detail-retrieval path, and "in full" suggests it is the heavier read. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it differs from check_finish or check_coating.

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