List Cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists cases, but does not mention pagination, default limiting behavior, sorting, read-only guarantees, or any side effects—especially since the schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 20.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though slightly too sparse to fully replace missing annotations and usage guidance.

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 is a simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context against siblings and does not clarify limit behavior, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding between this and search_case.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the sole 'limit' parameter. The parameter is discoverable from the schema, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 clear verb and resource: '列出所有历史案例' (list all historical cases). It identifies the operation as a bulk listing, which helps distinguish it from siblings like search_case or get_case, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus search_case, get_case, or delete_case. The description only implies that it is for retrieving all historical cases; there are no exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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