QMetry: Fetch Test Case Version Details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: requires numeric ID (not entityKey), version defaults to 1, and provides version-specific metadata and history. No contradiction with 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 description is well-structured with sections: summary, toolset, parameters (bullet list), output description, use cases, examples, hints. Every section adds unique value, no redundant or filler text. Front-loaded with a clear one-line summary.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters with usage hints, multiple use cases, and a concrete example. The output description is brief ('JSON object with version-specific test case details') but sufficient given the lack of output schema. Could provide more detail on returned fields.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds practical value: explains that 'id' is internal numeric ID not entityKey, tells how to obtain it (from search results), notes version defaults to 1, and lists common scope values. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get QMetry test case details for a specific version by numeric ID', specifying the verb (Get), resource (test case version details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like qmetry_fetch_test_case_details by emphasizing version-specificity. The mention of numeric ID vs entityKey further clarifies the resource identifier.

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 lists four explicit use cases (get specific version, compare versions, retrieve history, audit changes). It also provides hints about when to first resolve entityKey to numeric ID using FETCH_TEST_CASES. However, it does not explicitly contrast with non-version fetch tools or state when not to use this tool.

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