Get Evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies a read via 'Get'. It says nothing about whether the evidence must exist, error behavior for unknown IDs, any access restrictions, or what happens with the two accepted ID formats. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the verb/resource established immediately. It is efficient, though almost too terse to carry any extra value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and there is only one well-documented parameter. The definition is adequate for a simple lookup but omits error/edge behavior and sibling differentiation that would make it fully complete.

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 single parameter is documented with concrete examples ("EVD-001" or internal UUID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('a specific evidence item'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_case or list_evidence/verify_evidence, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_evidence, verify_evidence, or register_evidence. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must guess that this is the single-item lookup counterpart to list_evidence.

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