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 behavioral burden. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but the description never states that this is a non-mutating lookup, what permissions are required, or whether case data is sensitive/auditable. With zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Appropriate size for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks context on safety profile and when to prefer this over list_cases/get_evidence. Minimum viable.

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 100% and the case_id description already provides format examples (CASE-2026-001, internal UUID). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific forensic case'), clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_cases (plural, listing) and create_case (mutation). However it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_evidence or explain what 'details' includes, leaving some ambiguity about sibling selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The singular 'a specific forensic case' weakly implies you need a known case_id, but nothing tells the agent when to reach for this versus list_cases or get_evidence.

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