case_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the scope (cases and KB) and a usage hint, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, pagination, or any limitations. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a usage directive. No filler words; every clause 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?

The output schema likely covers return structure, and the description gives purpose and when-to-use. However, it leaves parameter semantics completely to the bare schema and provides no behavioral details. For a simple search tool this is minimally viable but still has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. There is no guidance on the expected format of 'query' or the meaning/effect of 'top_k'. The agent must guess parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 performs 'semantic search across cases and KB', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like case_list and case_get, which are likely structured lookups rather than semantic search.

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 instruction 'Use this FIRST when debugging or planning' provides clear contextual timing for when this tool is preferred. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sets expectations.

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