get_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') implying a read operation, but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. With no annotations and no extra behavioral context, this is a minimal description.

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 with no unnecessary words, but it is extremely terse. While concise, it lacks substantive content; for a tool with no annotations, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 get-by-id operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient to convey the action. However, it does not mention what the response will contain, potential failure modes, or any prerequisites, which given no output schema leaves gaps for the agent.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as a required UUID string. The description merely says 'by id' which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not, offering no clarification on the parameter's purpose or expected values beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('custom org case') with a clear identifier ('by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like list_cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools for different resources, though the resource name makes it unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource type.

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