list-cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the listing and filtering behavior but omits crucial behavioral details like pagination (though page/limit params exist), default status, response shape, or whether authentication is required. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, source, and optional filters. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 tool is a simple list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description sufficiently captures the core purpose and filtering, but since there is no output schema, it does not clarify the return structure or pagination behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor but present gap, so 3 is appropriate.

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 adds a plain-language summary of filters (status or search term) that aligns with the schema but does not clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. No added syntax or example values are given.

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 uses a specific verb (List) and resource (cases from Filevine), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list-notes (different resource) and get-case (single case). It also notes optional filters, clarifying the scope.

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?

The description clearly states that it lists cases and can be filtered by status or search term, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives (e.g., 'for a single case, use get-case') or mention exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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