docketbird_list_cases

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important context that only tracked cases (practice scope) are returned. While it doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, the added scope detail justifies a slightly above-baseline score.

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 concise (about 100 words) and well-structured with a heading, a note about alternative, bullet-point usage scenarios, and a clean args list. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple listing functionality, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, scope, parameter details, and usage guidance. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains each parameter: scope enum values, page starting at 1, page_size default and max. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists cases on the user's DocketBird account (practice scope). It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'docketbird_search_cases' for searching all courts.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: viewing own/firm's tracked cases and finding case IDs for other operations. It also directs to an alternative tool for broader searches, giving clear usage context.

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