list_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly meets it: it indicates a read-only scan, enumerates returned fields, and specifies ordering (newest first). It could more explicitly state that it does not modify files, but 'scan' and 'returns' convey non-mutating behavior.

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 short, information-dense, and front-loads the core purpose before listing return values. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, return fields, and ordering, which is good for a listing tool. However, it leaves limit and max_depth semantics unexplained, and without annotations or useful schema descriptions it is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 0%, and the description does not explain limit or max_depth, only implicitly addressing directory. The parameter names and defaults provide some signal, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool scans a directory tree for simulation cases, identifies the relevant file types (.DATA and .SMSPEC), and lists what it returns. This is specific enough to distinguish list_cases from sibling tools like list_wells or list_summary_vectors.

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?

Calling this 'The session opener' gives clear contextual guidance that it should be used first to discover available cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended role is strongly implied.

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