List verification case records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses pagination defaults (25), the 100 cap, and that out-of-range values are clamped rather than errored. It also explains that 'ref' is opaque and not a disk filename. It doesn't mention auth/permission requirements, a minor gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then parameter semantics, then edge cases — every sentence carries information. It is a dense, clause-heavy single block that could be broken up for scannability, but there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still conveys the key returned fields and the meaning of the otherwise opaque 'ref'. Combined with pagination and glob edge-case handling, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: glob is case-insensitive, matches against id, default None lists everything while an empty string matches nothing; max_results/offset control paging with default 25, cap 100, and clamping behavior. This is behavior the bare schema cannot convey.

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 (list) and resource (verification case records), names the directory it reads from, and enumerates the returned fields (ids, titles, statuses, refs). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_vcr by describing itself as a listing done 'for context before addressing one by id'.

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?

Gives clear context ('for context before addressing one by id') and routes the agent to the alternative explicitly: refs should be used with get_vcr, not list_vcr. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to list, but the alternative routing is strong.

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