solve_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions file generation and auto mode dependency, but does not specify if files are overwritten, permission requirements, or what happens with out_root. Partial transparency with some gaps.

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 concise with a front-loaded transformation arrow and brief parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, file output details, or how to handle the auto flag vs manual steps. Leaves many questions unanswered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains problem, party_side, and auto, but does not describe case_id or out_root parameters. Only partial addition beyond the schema.

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 solves case-type problems, extracts facts, claims, subsumption grid, IRAC answer, and review, generating files step by step. It specifies input types (text or file path) and output stages, providing a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like solve_record or stage_guide.

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 usage for case analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like solve_record or stage_guide. It provides context about auto mode requiring API key but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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