List test cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses API-enforced filter exclusivity, pagination size, and the view/mode coupling, which are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering, but covers the important constraints.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, pagination, filter constraint, and the special view behavior. No filler and the key limitations are front-loaded right after the one-line purpose.

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 7-parameter list operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main call-shaping behaviors and pagination. It doesn't describe the fields returned in the list payload, but that is a minor omission for a list tool whose name already signals the result type.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds relational semantics beyond the schema by warning that multiple filters are rejected and that view only works with mode. This helps an agent construct a valid request.

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?

Opens with 'List test cases for a project,' identifying a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, list_test_runs, and list_defects, and the title isn't merely restating the name.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: pagination at 50 per page, at most one of four filters because the API rejects multiples, and view: "count" being valid only with mode. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for single test case retrieval, 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.