case_list

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses the exact response envelope, item fields, newest-first ordering, and the damaged-folder behavior where a case appears with state='unreadable' rather than disappearing. This is substantive behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or the tool name.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded [READ] tag and main action, a WHEN usage note, and a terse return-shape description. The unusual unreadable-state edge case earns its own sentence without bloating the text.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, ordering, response shape, pagination-related fields, and an important edge case. Since there is no output schema, including the return envelope in the description is essential and it is present.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the input schema, including its default, ordering, and the lack of an offset. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '[READ] List investigation cases, newest first' — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes this from case_get and other sibling case tools. The WHEN note further clarifies the intent by tying it to finding the id of a previously opened case.

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 explicit 'WHEN' clause tells the agent to use this tool when it needs the id of an earlier-opened case, which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to case_get for full case details, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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