get_performance_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by noting the case is 'redacted' and includes 'evidence envelopes' and 'event history', giving the agent a sense of the response structure and that sensitive data may be filtered.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key return components. No filler or redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple read operation. It covers the main resource and its parts, though it omits information about the database_name parameter and any usage nuances, which are minor gaps for this tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (only case_id has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning, leaving database_name completely undocumented. Since coverage is not high and the description doesn't compensate, parameter semantics are weak.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('redacted performance case') plus its associated components ('evidence envelopes, and event history'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collect_performance_evidence or get_object_details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or name alternative tools (e.g., for querying a case, use this; for collecting evidence, use collect_performance_evidence). The description only states what it does, not the intended scenario.

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