list_support_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it offers only the basic 'list all' statement. It does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, permissions, or the possibility of large result sets, which are important for an agent to anticipate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise but could be slightly more informative about the tool's scope or relationship to siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 is very sparse given the tool's complexity. It lacks any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or how filtering works, and there is no differentiation from search_support_cases. The absence of an output schema makes this a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (filter, parent, pageSize, pageToken) already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all support cases for a Google Cloud project or organization' with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from some siblings like get_support_case (single case) but does not explicitly differentiate from search_support_cases, which likely offers similar listing with more advanced filtering.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_support_cases or get_support_case. The phrase 'list all' implies a broad listing use, but there are no explicit exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent without clear decision information.

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