case_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, and the example ID provides context about the resource. However, it omits details like error handling (e.g., not found) or authorization, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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, compact sentence with a helpful example. It is front-loaded with the action ('Read') and resource ('case'), and every word earns its place. 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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. It identifies the exact use case (fetching by ID) and provides an example. Missing explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by providing an example ID format ('case-2026-08-07-001') which clarifies the expected string structure. However, it doesn't elaborate on the semantics beyond that, leaving some ambiguity about whether the ID is the full path or a simple key.

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's function: 'Read a case by its id' with a concrete example ID format ('case-2026-08-07-001'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like case_list (listing) and case_search (searching), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 you have a specific case ID, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use case_search to find cases by criteria'), but the phrase 'by its id' effectively communicates that this is the direct-fetch tool, distinct from list/search variants.

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