Get Test Cycle Custom Fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states the action. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or potential errors. The minimal description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 and free of unnecessary words. However, it is extremely brief and could be restructured to include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (single parameter), the description does not specify the format or structure of the returned 'details'. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant gap for agent usability.

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 provides a clear description for the only parameter 'projectId', including a reference source. The description adds no additional parameter info, so the score is at baseline given 100% 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'test cycle custom field details', making the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from sibling tools that target different entities (test case, test plan, etc.).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., get-qmetry-te-custom-fields), the agent must infer the correct choice solely from the resource name.

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