get_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return value is the current revision with exact evidence edges, which is useful context, but it does not disclose error behavior or revision semantics. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 sentence with immediate verb-resource-object structure and no filler. Every phrase, including 'current revision' and 'exact evidence edges,' adds meaningful 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?

For a simple read-only getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description supplies the core retrieval semantics. It lacks usage context and parameter elaboration, but the annotations and output schema cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain finding_id beyond what the parameter name/title already convey. The single parameter is self-descriptive, but the description fails to compensate for missing schema details such as expected format or where the ID originates.

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 names a specific operation ('Return') and a concrete resource ('the current finding revision'), and adds the distinctive detail 'with its exact evidence edges.' This clearly differentiates get_finding from sibling tools like list_findings or record_finding.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The word 'current' hints at revision semantics, but the description does not explain when to prefer this over list_findings or how it relates to other finding-related tools.

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