lc_get_case

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Fetch' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., case not found), permissions required, or rate limits. For a simple fetch, this may suffice, but more context would improve transparency.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and inputs. It doesn't describe the return value, but for a straightforward get operation, this is often assumed. Could be slightly more complete by hinting at the response structure, but current level is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions 'case number' and 'explicit org' corresponding to the two required parameters, oid and case_number. This clarifies their roles but lacks detail on format or validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it provides some semantics but not extensive.

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 'Fetch', names the resource 'LimaCharlie case', and specifies the two key identifiers: case number and explicit org. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lc_list_cases (for listing) and other case-related tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's implied that you use it when you have a specific case_number and need to retrieve that single case, but it doesn't contrast with similar tools or mention prerequisites.

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