get_custom_field_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. The word 'Read' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, and the version scoping adds context. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or permissions, which would be useful but are not critical for a read operation.

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, concise sentence that effectively front-loads the core purpose without extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 read tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose but omits details about the return value format and potential errors. This is a moderate gap, as the agent cannot infer what the tool returns, but the operation is sufficiently scoped by the description.

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 description coverage is only 25%, with only customFieldName described. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, though the purpose sentence implies the roles of testCaseExternalId, version, testProjectId, and customFieldName. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'custom field's value for a specific test case version', making it distinct from sibling tools like update_custom_field_value. The mention of 'tl.getTestCaseCustomFieldDesignValue' further reinforces the exact function call.

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 when a custom field value for a particular test case version is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., read_test_case for full test case details). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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