dossier_evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond stating it's a retrieval operation. While no contradictions exist, the description does not enrich behavioral understanding beyond 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?

The description is brief (one sentence plus list) but inaccurate due to parameter omissions. Conciseness is not sacrificed for correctness; the list should match schema names and include all required parameters. The structure is front-loaded but flawed.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description falls short. It does not explain the role of each parameter or describe the return value. Annotations are rich but do not compensate for lack of parameter and output details.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. However, it lists only three parameters ('caseFileId, dossierId, evidenceId') with mismatched names (evidenceId vs dossierEvidenceId) while omitting 'dossierEvidenceGroupId' entirely. This is misleading and incomplete, risking invocation errors.

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 action ('Retrieves details') and the specific resource ('evidence item linked to a dossier'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'evidence_get' (general evidence) and 'dossier_evidence_list' (listing evidence), making its 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states requirements but does not explain contexts where this tool is preferred over 'evidence_get' or 'dossier_evidence_list'. No when-not or exclusionary conditions are mentioned.

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