dossier_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return content (status, linked evidence, download URLs), which is beyond just the operation. However, it does not disclose any edge cases or potential failures.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output details, while the second sentence lists required parameters. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required string parameters, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is largely complete. It states what is returned and what is required. However, it does not mention any error conditions or that the IDs must exist, which could be inferred but not explicit.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions the required parameters (caseFileId and dossierId) but does not explain their meaning, format, or valid values. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but for an AI agent, more detail would be beneficial.

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 it retrieves full details of a specific dossier, listing key information (status, linked evidence, download URLs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dossier_list (list all) and dossier_evidence_list (list evidence). The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'specific dossier' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool: when you need full details of a specific dossier, and it requires caseFileId and dossierId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though for a simple get operation, the usage is clear enough.

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