Get Finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default compact mode and optional inclusions, but doesn't detail what 'compact' means, the return format, or any safety traits. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loads the core purpose and adds value with the opt-in behavior.

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?

Without output schema, the description lacks details on return structure or field meanings. It doesn't explain what a 'finding' is or how the compact/default response differs from expanded ones, which is needed for a fetch tool.

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 low (25%), but description hints at includePatchDiff and includeEvidence as 'opt into generated patch diff or deeper evidence'. However, it doesn't explicitly map parameters or explain includeDescription, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch one Codex Security Cloud finding' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_findings by focusing on a single finding and offers optional expansions.

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 when to use (for a single finding) and mentions optional expansions, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to siblings like list_findings or close_finding.

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