get_case

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully state the composition of the returned summary, implying a read-only aggregate, but says nothing about failure behavior when no case is active, result size, or whether the summary is truncated.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core noun 'active case' is front-loaded. The only soft redundancy is restating the tool name as 'Summary,' but the enumerated contents earn their space.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must alone convey what the agent gets back, and it does list the content categories. It stops short of explaining what defines the 'active case' or what happens when none exists, which matters for a zero-argument tool that depends entirely on ambient state.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description's mention of 'the active case' is consistent with the empty schema and confirms the tool is implicitly scoped rather than parameterized.

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 names the resource and enumerates its contents (evidence, findings, decisions, notes, recent runs), which tells an agent roughly what comes back. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cases, get_status, or export_case, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'the active case' weakly implies it operates on an ambient current case rather than an ID, but the agent is left to infer when this call is appropriate versus list_cases or get_status.

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