Get test case detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses exactly what the response contains (mapped test runs with status, custom field values, step descriptions with expected results), and the 'get' verb makes the read-only nature clear. It does not discuss edge cases like not-found or permissions, but those are minor for a simple getter.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned components in a colon-delimited list. There is no redundant filler or repeated schema information.

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 simple getter with two required keys, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives enough context about the returned detail to make a call. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to get_test_case_steps for step-only needs, but for its primary purpose it is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both caseKey and projectKey are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameters, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('a single test case'), and the returned content (mapped test runs with status, custom field values, step descriptions with expected results). It is specific enough to distinguish from list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_test_case_steps.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for a full test-case detail but does not mention when list_test_cases or get_test_case_steps would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions.

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