get_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read semantics are covered. The description adds the useful detail that custom fields are included in the result, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. missing case), depth of returned data, or format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the noteworthy detail (custom fields) come first. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter lookup, though it could be marginally more informative without bloat.

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 low-complexity read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description only lightly sketches the return (detailed info plus custom fields) and omits noting what happens for an unknown 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 100%, so the single case_id parameter (with example formats '123' or 'C123') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (test case) and adds a scope note about custom fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_cases (plural list) or get_case_fields, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cases, get_case_fields, or query_test. The agent must infer usage purely from the name, with no exclusions or prerequisites offered.

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