get_case_intake_requirementsReturns the minimum redacted evidence needed for a fixed-scope fit review and the public intake URL. It does not submit a case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (evidence requirements and URL) and clarifying it does not submit a case, providing behavioral context beyond 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second removes a common misconception. No extraneous words or 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?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully captures the tool's function and clarifies what it does not do. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter description is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is required.
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 returns 'minimum redacted evidence needed for a fixed-scope fit review' and 'the public intake URL'. It also explicitly says what it does not do ('It does not submit a case'). This distinguishes it from siblings like triage_production_failure and describe_rescue_offer.
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 specifies the tool's purpose and explicitly excludes case submission, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one describes the service offer, one provides intake requirements, and one triages incidents. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (describe_rescue_offer, get_case_intake_requirements, triage_production_failure).
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of describing the rescue service, providing intake requirements, and triaging failures.
The toolset covers key aspects: describing the offer, intake requirements, and triage. Missing a submit or status tool, but actions are handled via external URLs.