dealdesk.list_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about pagination (limit maxes at 100), default page size, ordering, or result shape, which matters for a filterable list endpoint.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 6-parameter, filter-driven list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description is well short of complete. It leaves filter semantics, pagination, and return shape entirely undocumented.

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 very low (17% – only projectId is documented). The phrase 'optional filters' hints that q/type/stage/ownerUserId filter results, but the description never maps any parameter to a meaning, adds no syntax or allowed values, and says nothing about limit.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (DealDesk cases), so an agent knows what the tool returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (list_cards, list_quotes, list_skills) beyond the resource noun itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_case or list_cards, no prerequisites beyond the projectId requirement, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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