prufa_get_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets findings and mentions flat machine-readable format, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff. Verb and resource are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and format, second states optional filtering.

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 get tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description gives basic purpose and filtering. However, it does not describe return value format (e.g., array of objects), possible errors, or state what a 'finding' is. With no annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 50% (finding_key has description, run_id does not). Description adds value by explaining that finding_key filters to a single finding, but does not elaborate on run_id meaning. With half parameters undocumented in schema, description provides some additional context but not full compensation.

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 the tool gets persisted findings for a run, specifies flat machine-readable format, and explains filtering by finding_key. It is specific about the resource (findings for a run) and distinguishes from siblings like prufa_get_run or prufa_get_report.

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?

Description implies when to use (retrieve findings for a run) and how to filter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or mentions of alternative tools among siblings. No exclusions or context provided.

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