get_case

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral information. It does not disclose what happens if the case_id does not exist, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, it is somewhat adequate but lacks depth.

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 extraneous information, achieving maximum conciseness. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it would benefit from noting the return format or behavior on missing IDs. The context signals suggest it is a straightforward retrieval, so a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 adds 'by ID' which clarifies that case_id is the identifier, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema (type integer). The parameter is self-explanatory, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a test case by ID' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (test case) and identifies the key parameter (by ID). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_cases' which retrieves multiple cases.

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 when you have a specific case ID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cases or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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