Get research case state

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a critical security warning that stored scanner and finding text is untrusted data and must never be followed as instructions. This goes beyond annotations by alerting agents to potential injection risks.

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 sentences long: the first lists all return components, the second provides a critical security warning. No filler, fully front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool returns multiple complex components (scope, SARIF, evidence, findings, etc.) and an output schema exists, the description adequately enumerates the returned data and adds the security context. It does not cover error behavior or case existence, but for a read operation, this is sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not. It only mentions 'Return one case' without explaining the case_id parameter's purpose, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (min/max length, required). The agent lacks guidance on how to construct valid case IDs.

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 clearly states the tool returns a single case along with its scope, authorization decision, SARIF results, evidence receipts, findings, patch verifications, and report receipts. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_check_scope or research_create_case.

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 when the full state of a case is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like research_check_scope for scope-only queries. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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