get_test_cases_for_test_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only discloses the basic read operation ('List') and that execution status is included. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if no test cases are found. The description adds a small behavioral detail (execution status) but otherwise leaves most behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It also includes the API method reference in parentheses, which is useful for verification. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without becoming overly verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explanations for filter parameters, return value format, and any contextual prerequisites. The description alone does not tell the agent what buildId, assignedTo, or getStepsInfo mean, nor does it clarify how the 'execution status' is presented in the output. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 13% (only executeStatus has a description), so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It fails to do so. The description mentions 'execution status' but does not explain the meaning or purpose of parameters like buildId, executed, keywordId, assignedTo, testCaseId, or getStepsInfo. It does not add any semantic value beyond what the schema already (minimally) provides.

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 function: 'List the test cases (with execution status) attached to a test plan.' The verb 'List' is specific, the resource is test cases attached to a test plan, and it includes the underlying API method (tl.getTestCasesForTestPlan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_test_cases_in_suite by specifying 'test plan' rather than 'suite.'

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 you need the test cases for a specific test plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_test_cases_in_suite for suites) or any exclusions. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this only if you have a test plan ID' or 'for suite test cases, use list_test_cases_in_suite.' Thus, usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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