dossier_evidence_list_to_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that items are from 'CLOSED groups not yet linked', but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like pagination, permissions, or error handling. Beyond annotations, it provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence plus requirement), which is concise, but it omits critical information. Brevity is achieved at the expense of completeness, making it merely adequate.

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's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain pagination, filtering, ordering, or the meaning of caseFileToLinkId, leaving an agent under-informed.

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% with 6 parameters including nested objects. The description only mentions caseFileId and dossierId, ignoring other required and optional parameters like caseFileToLinkId, page, order, and filter. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.

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 evidence items available to be linked to a dossier, specifically from CLOSED groups not yet linked. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like dossier_evidence_list which lists already linked evidence.

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 implicitly defines when to use: when needing to see evidence available for linking. It mentions required parameters (caseFileId, dossierId), offering prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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