dosare_list

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 describes the output fields (status, next step, deadline with days left, counts), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only list operation, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. It is not misleading but lacks explicit operational transparency.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and provides useful detail about the returned items. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the density might slightly reduce readability. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 list tool with five optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the content of each dosar but omits how filters work, whether pagination is available, and what the response shape is (e.g., array vs. object). It does not mention that the tool can be filtered, which is a notable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description does not reference any of the five parameters (type, status, clientId, companyId, supplierId). Schema description coverage is 60%, so some parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds no value for parameter meaning or usage. It does not hint that filtering by type or status is possible, leaving agents to infer from the schema alone.

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 resource: 'Case files (dosare) of the company' and enumerates the types of dosare (rental contracts, Declarația unică, periodic returns, fiscal standing). It also describes the key attributes (status, deadline, counts). However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or distinguish itself from sibling tools like dosare_get or dosare_stats, leaving the operation type implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dosare_stats, dosare_get, or dosare_actions. It does not mention any filtering or selection criteria, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would not know from the description whether to call this for a summary or a specific dosar.

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