evidence_case_file_report_preview

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds key behavioral context: the output is UNSIGNED, it's a preview, and it requires sealed evidence groups. It also implies the tool does not produce the final signed report. This adds value beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects or rate limits. No contradiction with 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-loads the core purpose and the unsigned nature, and includes the prerequisite chain compactly. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description explains the tool's role in the workflow (preview before signed generation) and the prerequisite. It doesn't explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. It also doesn't detail what 'sealed evidence groups' means, but the schema and sibling names provide context. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions caseFileId and the prerequisite chain, and the schema itself documents caseFileId as MANDATORY. However, the description does not explain the meaning of template, languageCode, data, metadata, or additionalData beyond what the schema provides. The schema has detailed structure for data.groups, but the description adds little semantic meaning for the other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does provide some structure, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool generates an UNSIGNED preview of a case file's evidentiary report, with a specific verb ('Generates'), resource ('case file's evidentiary report'), and purpose ('check its content before producing the signed version'). It also explicitly names the sibling tool evidence_case_file_report_generate for the signed version, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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 states when to use this tool: to check content before producing the signed version, and names the alternative (evidence_case_file_report_generate) for the signed version. It also provides a prerequisite chain: evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId, with sealed evidence groups inside. This is clear usage guidance.

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