evidence_case_file_report_preview

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

Annotations provide no useful safety hints (all false), so the description bears the burden. It adds context by emphasizing 'UNSIGNED preview' and the check-before-signing purpose, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or whether any persistent data is created. This is a moderate transparency gap.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes necessary workflow context without any redundant or vague filler.

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?

Given the high complexity (nested objects, 6 parameters) and unhelpful annotations, the description covers purpose and workflow but leaves parameter semantics for required inputs like `template` and `languageCode` unexplained. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the invocation details remain incomplete.

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 very low (17%); only `caseFileId` has a schema description. The description mentions `caseFileId` and sealed evidence groups but does not explain the required `template` and `languageCode` parameters or the structure of the nested `data` object. The description 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 uses a specific verb ('Generates'), identifies the resource ('case file's evidentiary report'), and distinguishes this tool from the signed-version sibling by explicitly naming 'UNSIGNED preview' and the alternative tool `evidence_case_file_report_generate`.

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?

It clearly states the intended use ('check content before producing the signed version'), names the alternative tool, and provides a prerequisite workflow ('evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId, with sealed evidence groups inside'). This gives the agent explicit guidance on when to invoke it.

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