list_hr_cases

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it lists cases; it does not explain output format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and available filters without extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description is minimal but functional for a simple list operation. It does not explain return values (no output schema), defaults (though schema mentions limit default), or behavior when no filters are provided. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, meaning each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating the filters, which overlaps with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'HR cases', and explicitly lists the optional filters (status, subject person, service). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_hr_case or search_tools by its specific listing purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (to list HR cases with filters) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the extensive sibling list, a brief mention of suitable contexts would improve clarity, but the current description is still clear enough for the core use case.

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