get_test_plan_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates exactly what comes back (steps, expected results, datasets with parameters and indexed rows, active status names, per-configuration status) and what run_id augments. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, permission requirements, or result-size 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core read, second sentence scoped to the optional run_id behavior. Dense with domain jargon ("datasetResults row/step coordinates") but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly; no annotations exist, so the omission of read-only/permission notes is the main remaining gap. For a 3-param read tool this is close to complete.

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 67%, with run_id already documented in the schema; the description only restates its effect by naming the extra fields it unlocks. test_plan_id and project_id get no semantic treatment in the description, and the $ref-shared description for test_plan_id is inherited awkwardly. Mid-range, baseline-level value.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get all cases in a plan") followed by an enumeration of the payload (steps, expected results, linked datasets, statuses). It is distinguishable from get_test_plan (plan metadata) and list_test_cases (project-wide cases) by implication, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Provide run_id to get the token owner's assigned execution IDs..." is a clear conditional trigger for the optional parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_test_case or list_test_cases, and no exclusions or cost/pagination caveats.

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