lc_list_case_assignees

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions required, or return format. The minimal description does not compensate for lacking 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?

Single sentence is concise but under-specified. Lacks structure and additional context that could be added without bloat, such as parameter clarification or example usage.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits details about ordering, deduplication, pagination, or relationship to cases, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers 0% of parameter descriptions. The description only hints that 'for an org' relates to the 'oid' parameter but doesn't explicitly state that oid is the org ID or provide any additional constraints or format.

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 it lists unique case assignee emails for an org. Distinguishes from sibling list_case_* tools by focusing on assignee emails. However, it doesn't explicitly connect the 'oid' parameter to the org, which is implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like lc_list_cases, lc_list_users, or other list tools. No prerequisites or context provided.

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