get_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned payload, which is useful. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it errors or returns empty for a missing ID, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is compact and readable. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields does much of the work an output schema would do. The main omission is how to obtain a valid finding_id, which matters because this is presumably a second-step tool after a listing call.

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%, so the single parameter finding_id is completely undescribed in both schema and text. The description implies a per-finding lookup but never says where the ID comes from (e.g., a preceding list_findings call) or what format it takes.

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+resource ('Full detail for one finding') and enumerates what the detail contains (description, mitigation, references, CWE/CVE, location). This implicitly separates it from the list_*/group_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The natural workflow (call a list tool, then call this for one item's full record) is only implied, and there is no warning about what happens with an invalid or unknown finding_id.

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