list_summary_vectors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail: the optional glob pattern is case-insensitive. However, it does not mention ordering, empty-result behavior, or what happens when the case_path does not exist, though the read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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 two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the pattern behavior is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 listing tool with an output schema and a small parameter set, the description covers the essential behavior. It falls slightly short on usage differentiation and limit semantics, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'pattern' is a glob and case-insensitive, and 'case_path' is the case being listed. However, it adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving its semantics to the schema's name and default value.

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 operation ('List'), the resource ('summary vector keys'), and the scope ('in a case'). It is specific enough to distinguish from value-reading siblings like read_summary, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_summary, field_summary, or well_summary. The intended use can be inferred from the name and description, but the description itself offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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