alm_find_test_by_name

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

The description includes the return format, showing the structure of the response (found, test_id, test_name). However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it provides the basic output 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for purpose and structured sections for Args and Returns. Every element adds value without redundancy, fitting within a minimal and clear format.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return structure. No additional context is necessary for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description explains that test_name is the 'Exact name of the test case in ALM', adding specificity beyond the schema's type-only definition. This conveys that an exact match is required and ties the parameter to the ALM context. However, it could be more precise about case sensitivity or whitespace handling.

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 'Look up a test case ID by its exact name', specifying the verb (look up) and resource (test case ID by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alm_get_test_case (by ID) and alm_list_test_cases (list all).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as alm_get_test_case or alm_find_test_instance. It only implies usage when the exact name is known, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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