Get Finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that findings may be accepted or retracted but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing ids, or whether the call is read-only, leaving significant gaps for a retrieval tool.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key purpose is front-loaded. The terseness is efficient but borders on under-specification given the missing parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lowers the burden. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description omits how job_id and finding_id relate and provides no behavioral context, leaving gaps for a two-parameter retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (job_id and finding_id) are undocumented. The description mentions only 'id' and does not clarify that both a job id and a finding id are required, nor their format or relationship.

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 ('Fetch a single finding by id') and adds a scope qualifier that the finding may be accepted or retracted. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_jobs and explain_finding, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_job or explain_finding.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives; it does not say to use explain_finding for interpretation or scan_domains for discovery. The only implied usage is retrieval by id, which the agent must infer.

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