ezd_api3_get_case

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with it without contradiction. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements, error behavior, or return format limitations, but for a simple read-only fetch the annotation largely covers the safety profile.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential information with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the system, and the lookup key. It could be stronger by naming sibling tools or describing the response shape, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by 'szczegoly sprawy' indicating returned case 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions CID but does not add new meaning beyond the schema; this meets the baseline for fully covered 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 uses a specific verb ('Pobierz' / get), names the resource (case details from EZD PUW), and identifies the lookup key (CID). It is clear enough to separate from list-oriented or mutation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'na podstawie CID' implies the tool should be used when a correlation ID is available and case details are needed. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as ezd_api3_list_cases or ezd_api3_get_last_case_changes.

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