case_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and documents the filter options, but it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or scope constraints. The description is adequately transparent for a simple list operation, but lacks depth.

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 core action ('List cases') and immediately adds the filtering options. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 that the tool has a simple two-parameter schema, an existing output schema (so return values need not be described), and a clear list operation, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by mentioning ordering or pagination behavior, or by contrasting with case_search, but for its simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that both parameters are optional filters, and it enumerates the valid values for status (open/in_progress/resolved/abandoned). The tag parameter is described as a filter, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify matching semantics (e.g., exact vs. partial).

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 states 'List cases' which is a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating it returns a collection of cases. It also mentions optional filters, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like case_search or case_get, though the naming and phrasing make the purpose reasonably clear.

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: to list cases with optional filtering by status and tag. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like case_search or case_get. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so while the context is clear, the guidance is limited to implied usage.

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