rag_get_case_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, read-only nature, error behavior, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool, it omits whether it modifies any state or if it requires authentication. This is a significant gap given zero annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately terse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context, so it is not a 5, but it is still well-structured and concise.

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?

With three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what '案例卡' and '通用方法卡' are, what the context is used for, or how the returned data is structured (though output schema exists, the description doesn't orient the agent). An agent cannot fully assess whether this is the correct tool without additional context about the domain or use case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It indirectly references case_id via '按题号' but does not explain the meaning or format of case_id, limit, or query. The query parameter has a default that suggests a use case, but the description does not elaborate. The description adds little value beyond the bare schema names.

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 clear verb '取得' (get/retrieve) and a specific resource: '案例卡与通用方法卡组成的上下文' (context composed of case card and general method card). It also specifies the key selector '按题号' (by question number), which maps to case_id. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the resource is unique and the tool name reinforces the purpose, so it is clearly differentiated from generic search or document retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (rag_search, rag_get_document, etc.). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The only hint is the specific resource it returns, but that is implicit and not explicitly stated as a selection criterion.

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