list_test_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the lightweight projection fields and the default/max limit, which are useful behavioral insights. It does not explicitly state the return shape or read-only nature, but the verb 'List' and the projection list make these reasonably clear.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds functional value: projection, filters, and limit behavior. No wasted words.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (lightweight fields), how to filter, and result limits. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but given the max limit of 200, this is likely acceptable.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filterable by project, suite, or search term' provides a useful summary but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., ilike matching, UUIDs).

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List test cases') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning 'lightweight projection' and the specific fields returned. This differentiates it from get_test_case (single, detailed) and search_suite (searches suites).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need a filtered, lightweight list of test cases—and mentions the filterable dimensions (project, suite, search). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, such as 'for full details use get_test_case', so it is strong but not a 5.

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