filter_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions exact filtering behavior but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, pagination, or error handling. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It contains no redundant information. However, additional structure (e.g., listing dimensions) could improve clarity without adding length.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, parameter interactions, or typical use cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 description lists dimensions (court, year, cause, source) that map to some parameters, adding context beyond the schema where only 'limit' has a description. However, it does not explain parameter formats, allowed values, or the 'cat' parameter. Given low schema coverage (14%), the description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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 tool filters cases precisely by conditions and explicitly says it does not perform semantic search, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_authoritative_cases and search_similar_cases. The verb 'filter' and resource 'cases' are specific.

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 exact filtering (no semantic search) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit from the '不做语义搜索' note, but lacks direct direction.

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