list_contam_case_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'directory tree' implying recursive capability, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what format results are returned in, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics for deep directory searches.

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?

Single sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded with usage intent ('Use this when...'). No redundant or wasted language, though the 'when you want to' construction is slightly weaker than a direct verb.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the maxResults parameter, does not explain the return value structure (file paths, metadata?), and omits behavioral constraints necessary for a filesystem traversal tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all four parameters. It implicitly covers 'directory' and 'recursive' via 'directory tree', and hints at 'extensions' through 'project files, result files, or weather files', but provides no information about 'maxResults' or parameter formats/validation rules.

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 finds (lists) CONTAM project, result, and weather files within a directory tree. It uses specific verbs and resources that distinguish it from siblings like run_contam_simulation or list_contam_bridge_entities (which lists session entities, not filesystem files).

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?

Provides explicit temporal context ('before running a simulation') establishing when to use the tool. However, it lacks guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if files are already loaded in a bridge session) and does not mention alternatives like list_contam_bridge_entities for already-loaded resources.

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