list_cases

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. '列出全部案件会话及状态' conveys that this is a read-only listing action and that the scope is all sessions with their statuses, but it does not disclose pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or performance implications of returning all cases.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, so an agent can grasp the tool's function at a glance.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned (all case sessions and their statuses) without needing to document parameters. The only notable gap is usage guidance, which is minor for a low-risk read-only tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The phrase '全部' reinforces the no-filter/no-parameter behavior, meeting the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 (列出/list) and a specific resource (全部案件会话及状态/all case sessions and status). It clearly distinguishes list_cases from siblings like list_volumes and get_case_status by naming case sessions and their statuses rather than volumes or individual case status.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided. There is no mention of alternatives such as list_volumes, get_case_status, or search_volumes, and no condition under which the agent should prefer another sibling.

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