zeasm_get_finding_evidence

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

The description restates the 'read-only' nature already declared in annotations (readOnlyHint=true). No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, required permissions, response format) are disclosed, so it adds marginal value beyond structured fields.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with zero redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals) and a relatively simple lookup operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual details (e.g., pagination, filtering, or relationship to related findings).

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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It does not provide any additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema descriptions, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get scan evidence for a specific EASM finding (read-only)' clearly states the action (get), the resource (scan evidence), the scope (specific finding), and the readonly nature, distinguishing it from siblings like 'zeasm_get_finding_details' or 'zeasm_get_finding_scan_output'.

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 provided. The description implies use for retrieving evidence, but does not differentiate from other get tools or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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