cases-list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or performance implications. The filter parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds nothing about what the tool returns or how it behaves.

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 too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings. One sentence under-specifies the tool's functionality. It lacks structure and front-loading of key details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of 'all cases', the effect of filters, or what the response contains. An output schema is absent, placing more burden on the description to explain return values, which it doesn't.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. No parameter details in the description are needed.

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 'Lists all cases' clearly states the verb and resource, but 'all' is misleading because the tool supports filtering via parameters. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like cases-list_subcases or cases-list_in_workspace.

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. With many case-listing siblings (e.g., cases-list_subcases, cases-list_in_workspace, cases-list_documentation), the description should indicate that this is for general case listing with optional filters, but it does not.

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