get_case

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes custom fields, which is not in the annotations or schema. This extra context about the return payload justifies a score above baseline.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and the key detail about custom fields. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is retrieved (including custom fields), though it does not exhaustively list all return fields. The absence of an output schema means a bit more detail could help, but the core guidance is sufficient.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter (case_id) with a description and example format. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the 100% 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 states a specific action (get) and resource (test case), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cases (plural) and get_case_fields by noting it returns the case's custom fields. This clearly identifies what the tool does.

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 for retrieving a single test case's details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like get_tests or get_cases. The context is inferred from the name and sibling list rather than stated.

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