get_matter_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies the types of included data, but it does not disclose any permissions, failure behavior, or side effects. Given the simple retrieval nature, 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 sentences: first states the primary function, second lists included content. No filler or 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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context about what details are returned. It could mention prerequisites like using search_matters first, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers the only parameter (matter_id) with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves full details for a specific matter (case) from Clio, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that search (search_matters) or retrieve subresources (get_matter_tasks, get_matter_documents) by emphasizing 'full details' for a known matter.

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 implies usage when you need comprehensive matter information and have a matter ID, which is clear in context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use search_matters to find the ID first), so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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