dossier_evidence_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists evidence, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or what happens with empty results. No contradiction with 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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and requirements. While it could be more informative without being verbose, it has no redundant content.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover pagination, filtering, sorting, or return value structure. Annotations help with safety but not completeness.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only mentions two of the three required parameters (caseFileId, dossierId) but omits dossierEvidenceGroupId and optional parameters like page, order, and filter. No detailed semantics for the nested objects are provided.

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 'Lists all evidence items linked to a dossier,' specifying the verb (list), resource (evidence items), and scope (linked to a dossier). This distinguishes it from general evidence list tools and other dossier-specific evidence tools among its siblings.

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 mentions required parameters (caseFileId and dossierId) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dossier_evidence_list_to_link or evidence_list. No context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria is given.

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