lc_list_cases

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions listing with optional filters; lacks details on pagination, sorting, default behavior, or performance implications. For a list tool with 12 parameters, more behavioral context is needed.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with key information. It wastes no words, but could benefit from a brief expansion to cover usage guidance or parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the required oid but ignores pagination (page_token), limit, sorting, and other filters. The agent lacks information about response format or pagination behavior.

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%, so description must compensate. The phrase 'with optional filters' is generic and does not explain any parameter's purpose, allowed values, or constraints. Parameter names (e.g., sort, order) are somewhat self-explanatory but no additional meaning is added.

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 'List', the resource 'LimaCharlie cases', and the context 'for an explicit org, with optional filters'. It distinguishes from siblings like lc_get_case (singular) and lc_list_case_artifacts (different resource).

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 versus alternatives (e.g., lc_get_case, lc_search_case_entities, lc_review_case_backlog). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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