describe_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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function, such as whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but never stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key coverage areas. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is concise and covers the tool's main purpose, but given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from clarifying that the tool is read-only or mentioning what happens if the case does not exist. It is adequate for a simple describe operation but leaves some edge-case context unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'case_name' parameter. It does not explain what 'case_name' should be, where to find valid values, or any formatting requirements, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 tool's function: 'Describe a case' and lists the specific aspects it covers (template, mesh status, parameters, latest time, solver). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cases (which lists cases) and other operations.

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 implies this tool is for getting a detailed summary of a single case, as opposed to listing or modifying cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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