QMetry: Fetch Test Case Details

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it does not persist UI filters, it returns metadata/properties rather than step details, and it requires the internal numeric ID rather than the entityKey. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 content is well-structured with clear sections, bolded headers, and a front-loaded core purpose, but it is substantially overlong. 'USE THIS for single test case lookup' is repeated in the opening, Use Cases, and Hints, and the entityKey resolution guidance spans multiple redundant numbered hints that could be condensed significantly.

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 read-only single-record fetch with no output schema, the description provides an output description, a worked example, use cases, and fallback strategies for entityKey inputs. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the preferred tool among siblings and how to handle non-numeric identifiers.

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 the schema already fully documents all five parameters, including the tcID naming warning and the entityKey distinction. The description's parameter section mainly repeats the schema text verbatim, and the added hints about entityKey resolution are more usage guidance than new parameter semantics. There is also a minor internal inconsistency where the description says tcID 'accepts a string or number' while the schema declares type 'number'.

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 opening sentence names the exact operation ('Get detailed information for a specific QMetry test case by numeric ID') and explicitly labels it 'USE THIS for single test case lookup', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like qmetry_fetch_test_cases and qmetry_fetch_test_case_steps. The purpose is concrete and immediately actionable.

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 Hints and Use Cases sections give explicit when-to-use guidance ('when user asks to fetch test case VKMCP-TC-5'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('use FETCH_TEST_CASE_STEPS for step-level details'), and a clear alternative path for resolving entityKey via FETCH_TEST_CASES. It also states a preferred option to ask the user for the numeric ID, leaving little to inference.

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