get_finding_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the dual-mode behavior (list vs. single fetch) and names returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or permission requirements for what is effectively a read/list operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then follows with the required inputs and the detail_id branch. Two tight sentences with no filler; only minor trimming would improve it.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, provenance, and the list-vs-single behavior adequately. It could say more about the shape of a multi-finding response, but nothing critical for correct invocation is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: issue_id and object_id are explained with their source, and detail_id's optional semantics (omit to list all, pass to select one) are made explicit. The provenance note 'from get_issue's objects' adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get per-finding detail') and enumerates the payload (file path, code snippet, evidence, remediation). It also positions itself relative to the get_issue sibling by sourcing object_id from get_issue's objects, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: supply issue_id and object_id, omit detail_id to list all findings for the object, or pass one to fetch a single finding. It also tells the agent where object_id comes from. It does not, however, contrast against related siblings like find_issues_for_file or get_remediation_guidance.

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