dossier_list

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by noting the tool returns a paginated list and suggesting polling for status changes. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, which aligns with the list operation. Description provides additional behavioral context (pagination, polling) without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and key inputs/outputs, second gives usage. No fluff or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (nested parameters, multiple filters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks details on pagination structure, sorting, and filtering capabilities, which are core to using the tool effectively. Agent may not know how to leverage optional parameters.

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?

The input schema has many parameters (page, order, filter with nested fields) but the description only mentions caseFileId as required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide meaning for parameters, but it does not explain filter, order, or pagination options, leaving the agent without needed guidance.

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 all dossiers in a case file, specifies the required parameter caseFileId, and lists return fields (IDs, names, status, dates). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like dossier_get (single dossier) or dossier_create.

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 gives a specific use case: 'Use to monitor certification progress — poll until status: CERTIFIED.' This implies when to use (monitoring) and the polling pattern. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives for filtering, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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