case_knowledge

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the GOTCHAS section discloses crucial interpretation rules: decisive status requires an applies_to check against case scope, matching is by version applicability rather than similarity, and unanswerable constraints are not passes. This prevents the agent from drawing false conclusions from returned 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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-line summary, then organized into WHEN, RETURNS, and GOTCHAS sections. Every sentence carries high-value information without padding or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description shoulders the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by listing the return fields, explaining format types and conversion needs, and adding key gotchas. The tool behavior is fully specified for an agent to invoke and interpret correctly.

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 already describes the optional case_id parameter with 100% coverage, including what happens when it is provided. The description's mention of 'plus {applicable, decisive_here} when a case_id is given' reinforces the schema but adds little beyond it, 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 opens with '[READ] What the knowledge layer accepts, and what is mounted,' which names a specific read operation and resource. The RETURNS and GOTCHAS sections further clarify that this tool inventories knowledge formats and version-checks mounted entries, clearly distinguishing it from sibling case-management tools.

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 WHEN section gives concrete situations: when someone asks what can be added to strengthen conclusions, or when a case cannot reach Confirmed and an actionable explanation is needed. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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