evidence_case_file_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by indicating that the tool is meant for discovering caseFileIds and inventorying existing files, which helps the agent understand its role in a workflow.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the action ('Searches case files') and then immediately provides usage guidance. Every word contributes 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 description covers the core purpose and usage scenario, and the output schema fills in the return value details. However, the incomplete filter parameter list and the name/title mismatch create a potential gap in understanding the full range of search capabilities. Moderate complexity warrants a slightly more detailed parameter mention.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' (which maps to 'title' in the schema), status, dates, and pagination, but omits many other schema properties like id, code, owner, category, metadata, and sort. The term 'name' is inconsistent with the schema's actual property name, and the list of examples is incomplete for the full filter object.

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 searches case files and lists specific filter types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evidence_case_file_get and evidence_case_file_create by framing its role as a search/find operation.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use to find a caseFileId when you don't have it, or to list existing files before creating a new one with evidence_case_file_create. This clearly indicates when to use the tool and names an alternative, though it doesn't explicitly state the 'when-not' case (e.g., if you already have the ID).

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