Get one finding in full

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It details what information will be returned (exact measurement, every stack frame, normalized SQL, child operations, related root causes, and typical causes). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention error handling, though the informative nature is clear.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the comprehensive content list, and the second gives actionable guidance. No unnecessary words; every phrase earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the key content categories and provides usage context, making it sufficient for an agent to understand what will be returned and when to call the 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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema as the finding id from list_findings, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline.

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 a full finding with specific content (measurement, stack frames, SQL, child operations, related findings). It distinguishes itself from list_findings by contrasting the list view's 'symptom' with the full context needed to fix.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to read this before changing any code and warns that the file shown in the list view is often the symptom, not the cause. This provides a clear directive on when to use this tool versus relying on the list view.

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