evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the required IDs from other steps and the return fields (status, hash, tspTimestamp), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites and return fields. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 three required parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and return fields. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., non-existent record) and does not explain the status values (COMPLETED, IN_PROCESS, ERROR) beyond listing them.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description maps each parameter to the output of other creation tools (e.g., id comes from evidence_create). This adds meaning beyond schema names, but it does not explain the parameter types or accepted values fully.

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 'Retrieves a specific evidence record', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_list (list multiple) and evidence_create (create), making the purpose 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 lists required prior creations (evidence_create, evidence_group_create, case_file_create) and return status fields, providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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