evidence_group_list

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists groups with status, but omits important behaviors like pagination (default page size, offset) and that the result may be paginated rather than 'all' groups. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, fitting purpose, usage, and requirements into two sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 of the input schema (nested objects for pagination, filtering, ordering) and lack of output schema, the description fails to cover essential details like pagination behavior, filtering options, or response format. It incorrectly implies 'all' groups are returned, ignoring pagination.

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 mentions the required caseFileId parameter. It does not explain the page, order, or filter objects, their structure, or how to use them. For a complex nested schema, this is a critical omission.

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 verb 'lists' and resource 'evidence groups in a case file' with their status values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_list (evidence items) and evidence_group_create (creation), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'find an existing group' and 'check which groups are ready for sealing'. It also notes the required caseFileId. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, so a higher score is not warranted.

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