evidence_group_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns statuses and requires caseFileId, but does not disclose pagination behavior or that filtering is available, which is a gap given the schema has page, order, and filter parameters.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without verbosity.

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 nested parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or ordering capabilities, so the agent may not use these features correctly. The lack of output schema also means the agent has no information about the response structure.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for the required 'caseFileId' parameter. It does not explain the optional nested parameters (page, order, filter) or their formats, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use pagination, sorting, or filtering effectively.

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 the tool lists all evidence groups in a case file with their status (OPEN, CLOSING, CLOSED). It distinguishes from siblings like evidence_list (which lists evidence items) and evidence_group_create (which creates groups), ensuring the agent selects the correct tool for listing groups.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'to find an existing group or check which groups are ready for sealing.' It also mentions the required parameter 'caseFileId.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like evidence_group_get (which doesn't exist in siblings).

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