Retrieve a stored EvidenceView snapshot by proposition ID, or specify a view ID to load a particular version. Enables access to prior evidence states for warrant evaluation.
Load a stored EvidenceView snapshot by proposition_id (latest snapshot unless view_id is given).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | No | ||
| proposition_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a read-style operation ('Load') and clarifies snapshot selection behavior ('latest snapshot unless view_id is given'). However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or whether any side effects occur.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then efficiently adds the parameter behavior. Every part earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the required parameter, and the optional parameter's behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it does not describe the shape of the returned snapshot or any error/not-found behavior, leaving a notable gap.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: proposition_id is the basis for selecting the snapshot, and view_id optionally selects a specific snapshot instead of the latest. This gives the agent meaningful parameter semantics beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and a clear resource ('stored EvidenceView snapshot'), and specifies the lookup key (proposition_id) with an optional variant (view_id). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ewp_evidence_view_put, which is the write counterpart.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a stored EvidenceView snapshot, with the default behavior of getting the latest snapshot unless a specific view_id is provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.