invariance_case_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the scope of returned data but does not elaborate on 'normalized' or any processing/performance implications. No contradiction, but limited added behavioral context.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a clear second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. It could clarify 'normalized' further, but for its scope it is adequate.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with an example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('Show') and a well-defined resource ('normalized evidence for a case') with an explicit list of components (case, runs, nodes, workflow events, actors, outcome). It differentiates from the sibling invariance_case_get by explicitly saying 'instead of only the case row.'

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?

It gives a clear condition for use: 'when you need the full workflow execution record' and contrasts with 'only the case row,' which implies an alternative. This is explicit enough to guide the agent without naming the sibling.

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