dossier_evidence_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it lists items and requires IDs, but fails to mention that it returns paginated results or that filtering is available. No contradictory information, but little added value beyond 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?

Description is a single sentence with a separate requirement note; it is reasonably concise but lacks structure. Could front-load key details like pagination or the third required parameter.

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 including nested objects for pagination and filtering, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how to use filters. Essential for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% with no parameter descriptions. Description only mentions two of three required parameters (caseFileId, dossierId) and omits dossierEvidenceGroupId. No information on optional parameters like page, order, filter. This is misleading and insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists evidence items linked to a dossier, with verb 'lists' and resource 'evidence items'. However, it says 'all' while the input schema includes filtering and pagination, implying it may not always return all items. Also mentions only two required parameters, but schema requires three.

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?

Only lists required parameters (caseFileId and dossierId), but omits the third required parameter dossierEvidenceGroupId. No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like dossier_evidence_get or evidence_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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