clio_list_matters

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it,' providing a small operational detail. However, the line 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write' introduces a write-related concept that could confuse an agent about whether this read-only tool supports writes; while not an explicit contradiction, it muddies behavioral transparency.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The parameter list is organized but padded with irrelevant fields like idempotency_key, approval_ref, and connector_account_ref, which are not core to listing matters. This adds noise without earning its place in the description.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on usage. It fails to explain how status, client_id, project_id, and project_ref interact, what 'connected firm' means for authentication, or why approval_ref and idempotency_key are present in a read-only list tool. The misleading 'resuming a write' comment further reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gives a terse definition for each parameter (e.g., status enumerated, client_id as filter). But several definitions are vague or extraneous: 'idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity' and 'approval_ref' are unrelated to a simple list operation, and the description does not clarify optionality, filter combinability, or format expectations beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 opening sentence, 'List Clio matters for the connected firm,' specifies a clear verb, a distinct resource type (matters), and a defined scope (connected firm). This immediately differentiates it from sibling list tools such as clio_list_contacts or clio_list_documents based on the resource name.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that clio_get_matter should be used for a single matter or clio_search for advanced queries. The only implied context is 'list matters,' which is too weak to help an agent decide between this and the many other clio_* and list_* tools.

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