case_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a summary (counts and identifiers) rather than the full ledger, and clarifies that sources represent distinct skills for corroboration. This meaningfully goes beyond the annotations.

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 uses compact labeled sections — [READ], WHEN, RETURNS — and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, including the clarification of the sources field, which prevents misinterpretation of the return value. There is no 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states when to use it, what it returns, what it intentionally omits, and how the case_id is obtained. The returning field list plus the sources clarification gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke and interpret the 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 100%, and the schema already explains that case_id comes from case_open or case_list and that an unknown id is an error. The tool description adds little beyond reaffirming that the tool reads one specific case, so it does not materially improve on the schema's parameter 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 opens with '[READ] One case' — a specific verb, a clear resource, and the scope of what is returned (scope, ledger sizes, grade history). This distinguishes it from siblings like case_list, which would list multiple cases, and case_open, which would open a case for full evidence.

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 WHEN clause is explicit: use this tool to pick up an investigation or understand why a case has its current grade. It also gives a when-not by stating that this returns counts and identifiers, not the full ledger, and directs the agent to the case folder via the path from case_open for full evidence bodies.

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