list_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 does mention 'cursor-paginated,' which is a meaningful behavioral detail about pagination style. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., list of case objects), error handling, rate limits, or whether results are ordered or filtered. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a list, and the minimal disclosure is not enough.

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 concise phrase, front-loading the core action and resource. There is zero extraneous text, and it is immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate in a minimal sense — it tells the agent the resource and pagination method. However, it fails to note what a 'case' is or how this tool differs from the several other case-listing siblings (list_platform_cases, list_assessment_cases, list_interview_org_cases). Without that context, an agent could pick the wrong tool. It is not severely incomplete, but it leaves notable ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% — both cursor and page_size are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the word 'cursor-paginated,' which reinforces the role of the cursor parameter but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value only.

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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('custom org cases'), which is clear enough. It also mentions 'cursor-paginated,' giving a hint about behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_platform_cases or list_assessment_cases, but 'custom org' narrows the scope reasonably. Not a full 5 because it lacks an explicit note on what distinguishes it from other case-listing tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_platform_cases or list_assessment_cases. The description provides no context for choosing this tool in a given situation. It relies on the agent to infer from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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