zeasm_get_finding_evidence

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only.' However, it adds valuable behavioral context: content is a subset of scan output, can be large free-form text, and is preserved verbatim. This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations about size and fidelity.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by key details about output characteristics. No wasted words; 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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits parameter guidance and does not fully explain how the returned content relates to a finding (e.g., how to obtain the finding_id). It partially describes the return structure (content and source_type) but lacks prerequisites or cross-references to other zeasm tools. Overall adequate but with a notable gap in parameter semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (org_id, finding_id). While their names are self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how to obtain valid values (e.g., from listing endpoints) or any format/constraints. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'scan evidence attributed to one EASM finding'. It specifies exactly what is returned (evidence content and source_type) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zeasm_get_finding_details and zeasm_get_finding_scan_output by clarifying it returns the evidence subset of 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zeasm_get_finding_scan_output or zeasm_get_finding_details). It implies usage by describing the specific output, but there is no direct guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.

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