get_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states what it returns but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what if identifier is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence is essential, no filler. Efficiently communicates purpose and key details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of completeness for a fetch tool. It explains what it does, the input format, and what it returns. However, it lacks details on error behavior and prerequisites, which would be helpful for robust usage.

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 covers the parameter fully with a description of acceptable identifier types. The description adds value by recommending numeric ID from search results, which aids correct invocation. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3, and the added guidance justifies a 4.

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 retrieves full details for a specific Solodit finding, specifying three types of identifiers (numeric ID, URL, slug) and that it returns complete markdown and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_findings which is for searching, not fetching full details.

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 obtaining full details of a specific finding and recommends preferring numeric ID from search results, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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