list_cases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the return envelope shape {items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint}, and the notable edge case that damaged cases appear with state='unreadable' rather than disappearing.

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?

Front-loads the [READ] tag and purpose, then WHEN, then return shape. Slightly dense in the middle paragraph but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, when-to-use, return envelope, and an important edge case, which is strong for a listing tool with no output schema and rich annotations. Could be 5 with explicit sibling routing, but it's complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so the single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (default 50, no offset, truncated behavior). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('List investigation cases') with ordering ('newest first'). It is distinguishable from get_case/open_case by being a listing operation, but it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings beyond the WHEN line.

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 WHEN line explicitly frames the use case: 'to find the id of a case you or someone else opened earlier.' This tells the agent the discovery intent that routes here rather than to get_case (which needs an id). No explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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