arbitration__list_cases

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates it lists cases and supports optional filtering, but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or scope of data returned. Gains some transparency from prefix 'deterministic dispute rulings' but insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with a brief prefix. All information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

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?

Missing output description, no mention of return format, ordering, pagination, or any additional details about the list. Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates well by naming the parameter 'state' and listing allowed values (FILED|EVIDENCE_OPEN|RULED), which adds critical context missing from the schema.

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' and the resource 'cases', and the prefix provides domain context. It distinguishes from siblings like arbitration__get_case (single case) and arbitration__file_case (create).

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?

Implied usage: use for listing cases with optional filtering. No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like arbitration__get_case or arbitration__file_case. Lack of alternative recommendations.

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