kiwi_get_test_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does communicate the core read-only search behavior and filter semantics through examples. However, it does not state whether the result is a list, mention pagination or limits, or note the all-cases behavior; the all-cases warning is only in the schema, so the description alone is only partially transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, and the example filter dicts are high signal. There is no filler; each sentence either states the action or provides the syntax needed to call the tool correctly.

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 one-parameter, optional-query search tool, the description plus schema gives enough information for an agent to construct valid calls. The only minor gaps are output shape and pagination, which are less critical here because the tool's purpose and simple schema are clear.

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% and the query parameter is already explained, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete kiwi ORM keys with example values, which teaches the agent the exact filter format and common access patterns.

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 states a specific action, 'Search', and a clear resource, 'test cases', so an agent can recognize it as a filtered lookup tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from singular kiwi_get_test_case or kiwi_get_run_cases, so it is not a top score.

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 demonstrates practical filter patterns for plan, product, summary, and status, and the schema warns that omitting the query returns all cases. It never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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