arbitration__get_case

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only fetch by nature but omits details on authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key action and result. It loses a point for not integrating parameter information, but remains efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks detail on return structure or how the case_id is used. More context about related tools (e.g., list_cases) would help complete the picture.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'case_id' parameter (e.g., format, source, required). The name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add value beyond the schema structure.

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') and resource ('full case record, including any ruling'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_cases' and implying completeness. The prefix '[arbitration — deterministic dispute rulings]' adds module context.

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 use when a specific case's full record is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with list_cases (for browsing) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.

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