list-test-cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation (fetch), but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. The lack of a readOnly hint or similar annotation leaves room for ambiguity, though the action is inherently read-only.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose ('Test Design — fetch test cases'), followed by core constraints. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally concise for an AI agent.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it fetches, required input (moduleId), and optional filtering with field examples. The schema covers the other required parameter (projectId). It does not mention return structure or pagination, but these are often implicit for list tools. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by listing examples of filterable fields (Type, Status, Priority, version), which are not present in the schema's parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand what values for 'field' are meaningful. The schema already explains the 'filters' array structure and AND logic.

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 action ('fetch test cases'), the source ('from a qTest module'), and the optional filtering capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add-test-cases' (add) and 'list-modules' (different resource). The title 'Test Design' provides additional context. No ambiguity.

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 mentions the required parameter 'moduleId' and optional filters, implying it should be used when retrieving test cases from a specific module. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when needing to filter by user) or mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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