arbitration__list_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it is a list operation but omits details like whether it returns a paginated list, sorting, auth requirements, or side effects. For a read-only tool, basic transparency is missing.

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: one line plus a clarifying prefix. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filtering. However, it lacks any hint about the return format (e.g., array of case objects) or potential errors, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully rely on.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the valid state values. However, it does not explain the parameter's meaning beyond the filter values (e.g., what null returns, case sensitivity). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 'List cases' with an optional filter by state, providing specific valid values (FILED, EVIDENCE_OPEN, RULED). The prefix '[arbitration — deterministic dispute rulings]' adds domain context. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_case (single case) and file_case (creation).

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 specifies the filtering capability but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like get_case or file_case. The context is implied by sibling names, but explicit when/when-not guidance is missing.

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