list_assessment_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is 'cursor-paginated', which hints at a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only and has no side effects. It also does not mention any required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond an implied list of tasks. The minimal text leaves important expectations undisclosed.

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 conveys the primary function and a key behavior (pagination) without verbose fluff. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it could be slightly expanded to clarify terminology. The structure is appropriate for a low-complexity list operation.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention that the assessment slug is required (though the schema implies it), nor does it describe the return format, ordering, or whether any filtering is possible beyond pagination. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not outstanding; an agent would need to rely on the schema for crucial details like the required slug.

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 input schema already documents cursor and page_size with descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions pagination generically. The required 'slug' parameter lacks a schema description, and the tool description does not clarify its purpose beyond the name, though it is reasonably inferable as the assessment identifier. This baseline of 3 reflects that the schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

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 states a clear verb-resource pairing: 'List tasks attached to an assessment'. The tool name 'list_assessment_cases' and the description align on the core action, though it uses 'tasks' instead of 'cases', which could cause minor ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like attach_assessment_cases (adds) and list_assessments (lists assessments) by focusing on attachment to a specific assessment. The 'cursor-paginated' note adds useful detail.

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 implies the tool is for reading cases associated with an assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_assessments or attach_assessment_cases. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the assessment slug must exist) or common scenarios. The context from sibling tool names gives some clues, but the description itself provides no direct guidance.

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