get_case_workspaceInspect a case workspace with facts, cited evidence, blockers, ownership, and timeline. This does not mutate the case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats that it does not mutate, adding no new behavioral context beyond annotations. No additional traits like auth requirements or pagination are disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. No wasted words.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description lists the contents of the workspace and its safe nature. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of case_id or differentiate from overlapping siblings, so it's not fully complete.
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 one required parameter (case_id) with no description. The description does not mention the parameter or explain its format, leaving the agent to infer from the name. With 0% schema coverage, this is a gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), identifies the resource ('case workspace'), and enumerates its contents (facts, cited evidence, blockers, ownership, timeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case by scope, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 implies usage for inspecting a workspace and explicitly states it does not mutate, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over get_case or get_case_package, nor any exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as answer_fields vs answer_question or the various intake actions. However, get_case, get_case_package, and get_case_workspace all retrieve case-related information and could be confused, and create_connector vs create_connector_from_openapi are similar. Overall, descriptions help separate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as create_, get_, list_, save_, submit_, upload_, and wait_. The naming is highly predictable and uniform across the set.
With 20 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 but still reasonable for a case-management platform covering intake, review, connectors, and workflows. Each tool serves a distinct function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the main intake, case review, and connector lifecycle well. Minor gaps exist: there is no explicit tool to complete or reopen a case, and workflows cannot be published or activated after saving a draft. These are workable but notable omissions.