get_csm_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'full details,' which implies a comprehensive response but does not elaborate on specific fields or format. This is adequate but does not significantly enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying the tool's function and parameter format.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description is nearly complete. It does not specify the return structure, but 'full details' adequately conveys the output. Adding a note about the response containing the entire case record would be a minor improvement.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter. The description adds examples (e.g., CS0001234) that clarify the expected format, providing value beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves full details of a CSM case using either a case number or sys_id. It explicitly references the resource (CSM case) and identification methods, distinguishing it from siblings like get_csm_account or get_csm_contact.

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 implicitly advises when to use the tool (when full case details are needed by number or sys_id). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context of sibling tools like get_csm_case_sla and close_csm_case makes the usage clear.

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