get

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the not-found error behavior, the nuanced `anchor` summary semantics (no anchor vs. retracted vs. nothing to grab), the bounded cost of anchor resolution, and that setting `resolve_anchors=False` avoids spawning a process. This goes well beyond a basic 'get' description.

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 most important content is front-loaded with the single-finding fetch, and the Args section is clearly structured. The anchor-semantics paragraph is dense and slightly convoluted ('apart from one whose anchor was retracted by hand and from one where capture looked and had nothing to grab'), but every section earns its place in a tool with this behavioral nuance.

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 a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, how anchor resolution behaves, when it errors, how to avoid errors through the batch alternative, and when to disable process-spawning resolution. There are no meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does. `finding_id` gets a concrete example (CB-1383), and `resolve_anchors` is explained with its default behavior, performance bound, and the exact conditions under which a caller should pass False. Both parameters gain meaning far beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Fetch a single finding by ID with full body' and enumerates the returned fields (description, severity, status, tags, meta, timestamps, commit refs). It further distinguishes itself from the lenient batch sibling by explicitly directing users to `query(ids=[...])`, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use `get` for a single strict lookup that errors on missing IDs, and use `query(ids=[...])` for lenient batch lookup. It also provides concrete conditions for passing `resolve_anchors=False` (no git, no repository, or only anchor-existence needs), making the decision boundary clear.

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