nexus_get_case

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral transparency. It discloses that there is no LLM output and zero retention, which is relevant for data privacy. However, it does not discuss other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or error handling. This partial disclosure earns a 3.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear verb and object, followed by a parenthetical behavioral note. Every part adds value.

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 tool has a single parameter and no output schema. The description clearly states the scope of returned data and a behavioral constraint (zero retention). For this level of complexity, the description is sufficiently complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit idempotency guarantee, but that is implied.

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 input schema already describes the required parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'full case detail including findings and counterparties'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_list_cases (list) and nexus_create_case (create). The additional note about zero retention adds clarity about data handling.

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 does not provide explicit usage guidelines or mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like nexus_list_cases or nexus_analyze. The purpose is clear but the context of use is only implied.

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