describe_case

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the return payload and the cost/scope tradeoff of detail="full" (whole schema, editable paths, allowed roles). It does not say what happens for an unknown case_id or whether 'latest run' can be absent.

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?

Two short sentences, the payload summary is front-loaded, and the optional-detail behavior is packaged as a second sentence with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly enumerates the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The gap is the undocumented language parameter and the lack of any error/not-found behavior for a required case_id.

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 carry the load, and it only partially does: it explains what detail="full" adds versus the default concise mode. The language parameter (ja/en/zh) and the meaning/expected format of case_id are never mentioned.

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?

Specific verb (summarize) plus resource (a case) and an explicit enumeration of what the summary contains: revision, parameters, boundary roles per face, readiness, latest run. It clearly separates itself from mutation siblings like update_case or validate_case, though it never names a sibling it should be preferred over.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'summarize' and the read-only framing signal an inspection step, and the detail flag hints at a cheap-first-then-expand workflow. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus validate_case, verify_case, or list_cases, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing a case_id from list_cases.

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