Get Case

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '获取' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about missing-case behavior, error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter getter.

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?

Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the core operation is adequately described. However, the absence of annotations and any sibling-tool differentiation leaves the definition incomplete for an agent choosing between get_case and related tools.

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%, and the only parameter is a plain string case_id with no schema description. The phrase '指定案例' links the parameter to a specific case, but adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the self-explanatory parameter name.

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 ('获取'/'retrieve') and resource ('指定案例详情'/'details of the specified case'), making it clear this is a single-case lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_case or list_cases, so it stops short of 5.

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 search_case, list_cases, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The name and required case_id imply usage, but the description itself offers no routing context.

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