QMetry: Fetch Test Case Version Details

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the numeric-ID-vs-entityKey distinction, the cross-reference to FETCH_TEST_CASES, and the claim that version-specific metadata and history are returned. However, the hint 'Version defaults to 1 if not specified' conflicts with the required version field in the schema, creating potential confusion about actual behavior.

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 organized and front-loaded with a clear one-liner, but it redundantly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim and includes generic boilerplate about scope. The use cases, example, and hints earn their place; the duplication and filler do not.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, provides a concrete example, and includes handling instructions for the most likely confusion (entityKey vs numeric ID). The output description is vague ('JSON object with version-specific test case details') and the version-default hint undercuts schema clarity, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by noting that id accepts a string or number despite the schema's number type, explaining how to obtain the numeric ID from search results, and instructing to resolve entityKeys via FETCH_TEST_CASES. The parameter section mostly duplicates the schema, but these additions justify a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get QMetry test case details for a specific version by numeric ID' — and clearly identifies the unique capability (version-specific fetch) that distinguishes it from sibling fetch tools. The tool name reinforces the purpose.

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 concrete use cases (compare versions, retrieve version history, audit changes) and gives a routing hint: if the user provides an entityKey like 'MAC-TC-1684', resolve it to a numeric ID using FETCH_TEST_CASES. However, it does not explicitly contrast with qmetry_fetch_test_case_details, leaving the when-not-to-use boundary implicit.

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