get_case

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic read operation and gives no details about what happens when the id is not found, what fields are returned, or any permissions/rate limits. For a simple getter this is a minimal but not transparent description.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential information: the operation, the resource, and the selection method. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter get-by-id tool, the essential invocation information is present: the id is required and used to fetch a single case. The lack of output schema and error behavior is a minor gap, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely adequate for an agent to call it 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?

The schema has one parameter, id (string), with 0% description coverage, and the description says 'id で' (by id). This adds little beyond the parameter's name, which already implies it is the identifier. It does not describe id format, constraints, or how to obtain a valid id, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 '1件の処分を id で取得する' states a specific action ('取得する' = get), a resource ('処分' = case/disposition), and the singular scope ('1件'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_cases (search), list_recent (list), and stats (aggregate), since it is the only one that fetches one item by id.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific id to fetch one case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, despite the sibling tools making the intended contrast obvious. This is implied usage guidance, not explicit.

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