testmo_list_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and reveals key behavioral aspects: support for filters and pagination. This is sufficient for a standard list tool, though it does not detail return format or permissions, which are typically expected from context.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes no filler. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently conveys both the action and key capabilities.

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?

Given 7 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the tool's role and capabilities. It mentions the main filter dimensions and pagination. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that the response is a paginated list of test cases, but this is strongly implied by 'List test cases'.

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 each parameter is already explained. The description adds minimal semantic value by grouping filters ('folder/name/template') and mentioning pagination, but this is already evident from the schema properties. It does not explain parameter interactions, such as recursive only applying when folder_id is set.

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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('test cases'), and the scope ('in a project's repository'). It also mentions supported filters and pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like testmo_create_cases and testmo_update_cases.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list test cases) but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives compared to sibling listing tools like testmo_list_runs or testmo_list_results. It states supported filters and pagination, giving context for common use, but lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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