Read case files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what each mode returns (labels, notes, artifact index) and that artifactId expands a single trace/cluster/bridge result in full. Limits such as result caps or pagination are not mentioned.

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?

It is a single dense sentence-per-mode block with no filler; the no-argument case is correctly front-loaded. The em-dash constructions make it slightly run-on and require a second read, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does so per mode, which is the right call for a three-mode read tool. The main omission is guidance on result size or whether the list/search is truncated.

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 only 67% (artifactId has no schema description at all), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that address triggers a cross-case search for prior labels/notes/traces and that artifactId fetches one artifact in full. That is more semantic detail than the schema supplies, though the interaction between case and artifactId could be spelled out further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('list every case') and then enumerates each invocation mode (no args, address, case, artifactId). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling case_update and case_export, which are the only other case-* tools. An agent knows exactly what this tool does before opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance per mode, including an unusually strong directive: search by address 'before starting on any address.' It does not name alternative tools (case_export, case_update) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top band, but the conditional routing is clear.

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