Xray Formatına Dönüştür

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior; the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail about using configured tenant values as defaults, but does not elaborate other side effects or output characteristics.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Describes the core conversion and one fallback behavior, but misses enough parameter detail and does not clarify single vs batch usage. With five parameters and a nested object, the description is only barely adequate.

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 has no parameter descriptions, and only project_key and custom_field_mappings are mentioned (their fallback behavior). The required testcase object, test_type, and include_custom_fields are left unexplained, so schema-description coverage remains well below 50%.

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 clearly that it converts a standard test case into Xray import format. The verb and target format are explicit, and the singular scope is evident from the name and the testcase parameter, distinguishing it from the batch sibling.

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 limited usage guidance by explaining fallback to tenant-configured values when project_key and custom_field_mappings are omitted, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like testcase_to_xray_batch or testcase_generate, so when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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