evidence_group_evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a general sense of non-mutating behavior (via 'Gets') and lists the fields returned, but does not disclose error conditions, pagination, or other behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose; the second provides terse, high-value prerequisite guidance. There is no redundant 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?

For a straightforward get tool with three required UUIDs and an output schema present, the description supplies all necessary context: what it returns, the group scope, and how to obtain each ID. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description. It is complete.

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 100% of parameters, each with a description and a source tool. The description's 'Requires' chain partially echoes the schema, but adds no new semantic meaning about parameter values or format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 explicitly states the action ('Gets'), the resource ('one evidence's details'), and the scope ('inside a specific evidence group'). It also lists the specific data returned (metadata, hash, custody, upload state), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evidence_group_get or get_evidence.

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 provides a clear prerequisite chain ('Requires: evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId, evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId, evidence_group_evidence_register → evidenceId'), telling the agent which upstream tools to call to obtain each required parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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