List Cases

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by noting that results include test cases marked with `isTestCase`, and it lists lifecycle values and sortable fields, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loading of the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and it avoids redundancy with schema annotations.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (compact case summaries including specific fields), pagination, filtering, sorting, and the special case of test cases. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool offers.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description largely reiterates information already present in the schema descriptions for parameters (e.g., sort format, enum values). It does not add significant new meaning, earning a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it lists debt collection cases with pagination, status filtering, and sorting, and distinguishes from `get_case` for full detail. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'cases' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to `get_case` for full detail on a specific case, providing a clear alternative. It does not elaborate on when not to use this tool versus other siblings, but the context of listing versus detail retrieval is sufficiently clear.

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