kiwi_export_test_cases_for_rag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the operation's nature ('Bulk-export'), the output shape ('flattened' with enumerated fields), and the full-text scope, and the export framing implies no side effects. It does not address scale or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit default, but for a read-style export the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences with no filler; the first is front-loaded with action, scope, and output format, and the parenthetical field list earns its place given there is no output schema. The TestRail mirror clause is a single short anchor rather than noise.

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 moderate-complexity tool with a nested query object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, result fields, and bulk behavior — the field enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. The notable gap is explicit routing against kiwi_get_test_cases, which is close in name and function.

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%, with both limit ('Max cases (default 500)') and query ('ORM filter, e.g. {"plan": 12}') already documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only references `query` in passing ('matching `query`') and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema examples.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Bulk-export full text of test cases matching `query`') and specifies the flattened return shape with exact fields (id, summary, category, priority, status, text, notes). The RAG/review framing and field list distinguish it from sibling lookup tools like kiwi_get_test_cases and kiwi_get_test_case.

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 usage context — bulk full-text retrieval for RAG/review — and the 'Mirrors TestRail export_cases_for_rag' clause anchors its behavior. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with the sibling kiwi_get_test_cases / kiwi_get_test_case tools, nor states when not to use it. An agent must infer the distinction from the flattened, full-text output shape.

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