arbitration__file_case

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context: 'Opens the evidence window' and notes that dispute rulings are deterministic. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what happens after opening the window.

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 with two sentences covering action, behavioral effect, and constraints. No extraneous information.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not hint at the return value (likely a case ID) or what follows the evidence window opening. It omits prerequisites like requiring an existing escrow.

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 the description should explain each parameter. It only clarifies that amount_minor is in cents. No meaning is added for claimant, respondent, or escrow_id, leaving users to infer from names.

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 action: 'File a dispute over an escrow.' It opens the evidence window, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like arbitration__list_cases or arbitration__submit_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or criteria for selecting this over related tools like arbitration__get_case or escrow__dispute_escrow.

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