Get Test Execution Custom Field Reference Count

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. It only states the action, so the agent has no information about whether this tool modifies data or is safe to call arbitrarily.

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?

Description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the core action. No extraneous words or filler, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but falls short on specifying what the response contains (e.g., the count value). It could mention that it returns a number or similar detail for full completeness.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with references to other APIs ('Get custom fields', 'Get Test Execution Custom Fields'), which indicates where to obtain their values. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names, helping the agent correctly populate them.

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?

Description clearly states it gets the test execution reference count for a specific custom field. Verb 'Get' and resource 'test execution reference count for a particular custom field' are precise. The name and title reinforce this, making purpose unambiguous even among siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-tc-custom-field-ref-count or get-tcy-custom-field-ref-count. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer without help.

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