list_available_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation, which is non-destructive and simple, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, pagination, or any filtering semantics beyond the optional limit. For a low-risk read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it could have usefully incorporated parameter semantics without bloating.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the primary purpose but omits return format details (e.g., how identifiers are presented) and does not clarify the effect of the limit parameter. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about output structure and parameter usage.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention limits or how they affect results. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance on what 'limit' controls or its practical effect.

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 states a clear action ('list') and a specific resource ('case identifiers accepted by the configured backend'). It is distinct from siblings like list_geomed_capabilities and analyze_radiograph, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The verb and object are precise enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description only states what the tool does without any direction on selection among alternatives.

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