lc_preview_add_case_artifact

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'preview', hinting at non-destructive behavior, but does not explain side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the preview entails. Insufficient 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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure and is too brief for a tool with many parameters; it does not earn its place by providing essential details.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, no output schema) and the presence of many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the preview returns, how to interpret results, or any further context needed for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 8 parameters beyond their names in the schema. No explanation of oid, case_number, path, source, or optional fields like note, verdict, artifact_type, token_ttl_seconds.

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 (preview adding), resource (forensic artifact reference), and target (case). It distinguishes from other preview tools by specifying 'forensic artifact reference', but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like lc_preview_add_case_detection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is a dry-run or provide context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. Given many preview siblings, explicit usage guidelines are missing.

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