List the evidence topics covered by the Lipe corpus and suggested questions. Use when the user asks what the connector knows or what they should investigate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| topics | Yes | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes | ||
| last_reviewed_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'Lipe corpus' scope and that the tool returns suggested questions, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, limits, or relationship to other tools. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and object, and immediately follows with a practical usage trigger. Every word earns its place with no 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers why and when to call it. It names the corpus, the topic/evidence scope, and the user intent that should select this tool. Nothing essential is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. A baseline of 4 is warranted because there are no parameters to explain.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('evidence topics covered by the Lipe corpus and suggested questions'), clearly identifying what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_case_overview or search, but the object and scope are concrete enough for an agent to select it.
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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks what the connector knows or what they should investigate.' It lacks a when-not-to-use or alternative routing statement, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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 clearly distinct role: search queries the corpus, fetch retrieves a specific result page, get_case_overview provides the summary, and list_case_topics enumerates available topics. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.
Names are all lowercase imperative verbs, and multi-word tools use underscore-separated verb_noun format. The single-word names fetch and search are slightly less descriptive than the get_/list_ prefixed names, but the style is otherwise consistent.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only court-record connector: an orientation tool, a topic list, a search operation, and a page-fetch tool. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The set covers the full workflow from orientation and topic discovery to search and exact-page retrieval with provenance and citation. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of answering questions from the Lipe record.