get_related_cases

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

No annotations provided, so the description should disclose safety and behavior. It implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only, mention pagination, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. However, its brevity limits the information conveyed; a slightly longer description could improve 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's simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks details on how relatedness is defined (e.g., relationship type) and whether results are paginated, which would aid agent understanding.

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 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., caseID example, sessionCredentials explanation). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieve a list of related cases for a given case ID. However, among siblings like get_case_ancestors and get_case_descendants, there is no differentiation to explain what 'related' means versus hierarchical relationships.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_case_ancestors) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context provided.

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