list_interview_org_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 only states the action ('list') without disclosing any behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, return format, or required permissions. For a listing operation, it is implicitly read-only, but no explicit disclosure exists, and the description adds no insight beyond the obvious.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core action, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-specifies.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description should at least explain the parameter and provide usage context. It does neither, and with many sibling tools that overlap in purpose (e.g., list_cases, list_platform_cases), the lack of differentiation and parameter explanation leaves the agent under-informed 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?

The schema defines a single optional parameter 'q' as a string with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain 'q' at all, leaving its purpose and format entirely ambiguous. This is a critical omission because the description must compensate for the schema's silence, and it fails to do so.

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 tool lists 'org coding cases available for interviews', specifying the resource (org coding cases) and purpose (for interviews). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_platform_cases and list_cases by scope, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives. The verb 'list' is clear and the resource is specific.

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_cases or list_platform_cases. No context is given about the intended use case (e.g., fetching cases for interview setup) or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and provides no selection criteria.

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