List evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about what 'evidence' means here: comments and case files marked by the owner/jury. This goes beyond the annotation by scoping the read operation to a specific subset of case data.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then clarifies the evidence kinds. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 read-only list operation with one well-described parameter and no nested objects, the description is adequate. It does not specify the exact return shape, but the nature of the resource ('comments and case files') gives enough context for an agent to infer the result.

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 input schema fully documents the single caseId parameter with a clear description, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description adds no significant parameter detail beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a case's marked evidence'), and further clarifies the content type ('comments and case files ... kind: comment|file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_comments or mark_evidence.

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 makes clear that this is for marked evidence only, which implies the context where it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_comments or explain when the agent should prefer one over the other.

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