List Cases (Intempus)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one real behavioral constraint (results are limited to cases accepting time registrations), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or the admin-only nature of includeInactive beyond what the schema states.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and searchable fields are packed efficiently. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented limit parameter, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say something about what is returned or how results are bounded. With 3 parameters, 33% schema coverage, and no return-value guidance, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 33%: 'query' and 'limit' are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining that query searches by number, name or customer, but 'limit' (max 500) is left entirely unexplained in both places. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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 (search/list) and resource (cases/projects), plus a meaningful scope qualifier: only cases that accept time registrations. It also names the searchable fields (number, name, customer). It stops short of naming any sibling tool to differentiate itself, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'cases/projects that accept time registrations' implies the workflow (find a case before calling intempus_register_time), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against siblings such as intempus_list_work_types. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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