List case reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further with two facts the structured data cannot convey: that approving/merging reviews has no API endpoint (UI-only), which bounds what this tool can ever return, and a cost/latency figure (~0.5s, one call). Neither statement contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the alternative-tool routing, then cost. No sentence is redundant and the most decision-relevant constraint (no API path to approve/merge) appears early.

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 nine-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the decision-relevant boundary (state is observable but not actionable via API) and a cost estimate. It stops short of describing result shape or how paging behaves in practice, but the offset/limit params in the schema largely cover that, so the gap is minor.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (including status enum values, case_id and author/reviewer filters). The description only adds a light hint about using the status filter to find open reviews, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List a project's reviews') plus the payload dimension ('with their current state'), and explicitly names the sibling alternative qase_get for single-review retrieval. An agent can distinguish this from qase_review_create/update/delete and qase_get without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('the only way to learn what happened to a review you opened'), when-not-to ('For one review by ID, qase_get is cheaper'), and a concrete usage pattern ('Filter by status to see what is still open'). Alternatives and their selecting conditions are both stated.

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