Get a test case

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

With readOnlyHint=true provided by annotations, the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by indicating the response includes test steps and properties, which is useful given no output schema. However, it does not disclose potential error handling (e.g., 404) or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic content.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes a useful qualifier ('including its test steps and properties') without any redundant or unnecessary words.

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 get tool with two documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates the scope ('single test case by ID') and the content of the response ('test steps and properties'), covering the main usage context. Minor gaps like error handling or response format are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Numeric project ID.', 'Test case ID.'), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces 'by ID' which aligns with testCaseId, but no additional semantic meaning is provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 a single test case by ID') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like qtest_list_test_cases by specifying 'single' and 'by ID', and mentions the included content ('test steps and properties').

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 implies usage: it is for retrieving one test case when the ID is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative like qtest_list_test_cases for multiple cases, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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