List case properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Returns' is consistent. It adds that omitting case_id broadens the listing, which is useful, but doesn't describe output structure or potential edge cases.

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 very brief with only two meaningful clauses. The leading 'TestCase.properties.' is ambiguous and could be replaced with more explicit language, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic idea of return type (name/value) but leaves ambiguity around the exact format and scope of 'more broadly'. It is adequate but could be clearer.

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 already provides full descriptions for case_id (100% coverage), including the omit-to-list-without-filter behavior. The description essentially restates this, adding no new semantic information.

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 uses 'Returns name/value properties' which clearly states the action and resource. The mention of 'case_id' distinguishes it as case-related, though the opening 'TestCase.properties' is somewhat cryptic and could confuse an agent. It does not explicitly differentiate from run/execution property tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs kiwi_run_properties or kiwi_execution_properties. The only usage hint is about omitting case_id, which is more parameter behavior than tool selection.

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