List test cases

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds the client-side filtering behavior by name substring, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination limits (though maxItems is in schema) or response format. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds the optional scoping and filtering details. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 list tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation, optional scoping, and filtering. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., summary vs full details), but this is implied by the tool name and the presence of get_test_case for detailed retrieval. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters (search, maxItems, parentId, projectId) having descriptions. The description mentions parentId scoping and name substring filtering, but these are already covered in the schema property descriptions. The description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists test cases in a project, with an optional module scope via parentId. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_test_case (which retrieves a single test case) and list_modules (which lists modules). The verb 'List' plus resource 'test cases' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for listing test cases, optionally scoped to a module. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make it obvious that get_test_case is for single retrieval and list_modules is for modules. This counts as clear context without explicit exclusions.

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