Zephyr: Get Test Script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context by specifying the script type, text content, and id, but it does not go beyond what a simple read operation would imply.

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 reasonably organized but contains redundancy: the parameter section duplicates the schema, and the same expected output is repeated in all three examples. The first sentence is clear, but several sentences do not earn their place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It identifies the required parameter, describes the resource being fetched, and gives concrete examples.

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?

The input schema fully documents testCaseKey, including format guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats this same information rather than adding new semantic detail, and the examples only illustrate valid key formats already captured in the pattern.

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 the specific action: getting the Test Script for a given Test Case, and distinguishes it from related sibling tools such as zephyr_get_test_case and zephyr_create_test_script by focusing on the script artifact in Plain Text or BDD form. The resource and operation are unambiguous.

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 establishes a clear context for use: retrieve the Test Script for a specific Test Case, with examples showing realistic applications such as reviewing test instructions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the full exclusionary guidance that would justify a 5.

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