alm_get_test_config

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

No annotations are provided, but the description details the return format (found, test_config_id, test_id), which gives transparency about the output. It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions, but as a read operation, it is likely safe.

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 concise with a single purpose sentence and a clear Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return structure explicitly, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 only parameter, test_id, is described as 'ALM ID of the test case', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's simple type information. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 the test configuration ID for a test case' and explains its necessity for creating test runs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alm_create_test_run or alm_get_test_case.

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 indicates the tool is 'required internally to create test runs', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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