evidence_group_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the returned elements (status, seal, upload states) and the dependency chain, which is useful beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary action and then provide usage guidance and prerequisites. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple 2-parameter read operation with a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the purpose, content, and usage timing. It also gives the lifecycle context (before/after close) and requires dependencies, making it fully self-contained for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with each parameter already describing its purpose and origin. The description's 'Requires' line is mostly redundant with the schema's 'Obtain from' instructions, providing only marginal added meaning about the relationship between the two parameters.

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 'Gets one evidence group's details' and specifies the exact content (status, seal information, evidences with upload states). The verb 'Gets' plus the resource scope ('one evidence group') clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like evidence_group_search or evidence_group_evidence_get.

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 explicitly provides two concrete use cases: verifying all files uploaded before evidence_group_close, and checking the seal after closing. It also gives a prerequisite chain ('Requires: caseFileId + evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId') that clarifies the expected workflow.

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