dossier_evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'retrieves'. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them.

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, but the second sentence contains inaccuracies (parameter names). It could be more concise and should accurately reflect the schema. Front-loading is acceptable.

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 retrieval tool, the description is somewhat complete in stating the action, but the parameter confusion and lack of explanation about response or edge cases leave gaps. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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%, and the description only mentions 'caseFileId, dossierId, evidenceId', which are not the exact parameter names from the schema. It fails to explain the meaning of 'dossierEvidenceGroupId' or 'dossierEvidenceId', providing virtually no added semantic value.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'details of a specific evidence item linked to a dossier', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'evidence_get' or 'dossier_evidence_list', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The listed required parameters ('caseFileId, dossierId, evidenceId') do not match the actual schema parameters, which are 'dossierEvidenceGroupId', 'dossierId', 'caseFileId', 'dossierEvidenceId'. This is misleading.

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