list_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'list' and 'filter' but omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), default ordering, error states, or the nature of the response. This is insufficient for a listing 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words, and immediately front-loaded with the action. Every word 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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, pagination) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination mechanics, response structure, error handling, and default state. A listing tool requires more context for effective use.

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 explain all parameters. It covers suite_id and section_id as filters, but ignores project_id (required), limit, and offset for pagination. The description adds value over the schema only for two of five parameters.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('test cases'), and the scope ('in a project'). It also specifies filtering options ('by suite and/or section'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_case' (single case) or 'list_suites'.

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 usage for listing cases, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. Sibling tools like 'get_case' suggest a specific use case, but no comparison is made.

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