evidence_case_file_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the dependency on evidence_case_file_create for the caseFileId and the purpose of checking status before subsequent operations, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the function, the second provides use cases and a prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and safety annotations already provided, this description is complete. It explains when to use the tool and the prerequisite relationship, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema covers the single parameter fully with a detailed description including the UUID format and source from evidence_case_file_create. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'by id', so the schema does the heavy lifting, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Retrieves a case file's details by id', specifying the verb, resource, and identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evidence_case_file_search (searching) and evidence_case_file_create (creation).

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 explicitly says to use it 'to confirm a case file exists, or to check its status before creating evidence groups or reports under it', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for scenarios like searching without an ID, but the context is sufficient.

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