zeasm_get_finding_evidence

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' (matching annotation) and warns that content can be large free-form scanner text preserved verbatim. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could mention potential size limits or handling.

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 concise with two substantive sentences plus a 'Read-only' note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the return value structure (content and source_type), which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not mention error cases, authentication requirements, or how to derive input values from related tools like zeasm_list_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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters (org_id, finding_id) beyond implying they identify the finding. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 scan evidence for one EASM finding, specifying the return fields (content and source_type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zeasm_get_finding_details and zeasm_get_finding_scan_output by focusing on evidence content.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over zeasm_get_finding_scan_output). No prerequisites or context provided for the parameters, such as how to obtain org_id or finding_id.

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