Get case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation ('Get') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects. While 'Get' implies read-only, there is no explicit statement about that or about what the response contains.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it borders on under-specification. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too thin to fully inform an agent. It does not describe the return value, error cases, or any nuances of retrieving a case. For a tool with a single parameter, this might be borderline acceptable, but the lack of any response information makes it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 schema defines a single required parameter 'caseId' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not elaborate on what 'caseId' represents, how to obtain it, or any expected format. The agent is left to infer meaning solely from the parameter name, which is minimal.

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 'Get a single case by id' clearly states the verb (get) and the resource (a single case), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gambot_list_cases (plural) and gambot_create_case/gambot_update_case (mutations). It is not a tautology and conveys the core operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use get_case instead of list_cases, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent receives no direction on selection.

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