eval.listCases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the agent-scope authorization requirement, which is genuinely valuable, but says nothing about return ordering, filtering, or how many cases come back — notable for an unpaginated list tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint in the second position. Nothing here can be trimmed without losing information.

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 no-parameter read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it establishes scope and the auth prerequisite. The only real gap is what the returned cases look like and whether the list is bounded, which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a tool that lists all cases with no filtering input.

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 verb and resource ('List all eval cases') plus a scope modifier ('for the team'), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from eval.createCase (write) and eval.listResults (different resource). It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Requires agent scope' communicates a prerequisite for invocation, which is useful. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to the related eval.run, eval.createCase, or eval.listResults tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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