Get test case by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is a key behavioral trait. The description adds valuable context about the return format ('text returned as-is (Markdown)') and the optional executions, which enriches understanding of the behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each phrase adds value: 'Full test-case card' sets scope, 'text returned as-is (Markdown)' describes return format, and 'Optionally include related executions' covers an option. No waste.

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 simple read-only get-by-id operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned (full card), the format of text, and the optional executions. It does not specify error behavior or pagination, but these are less critical for a get-by-id tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'id' and 'include_executions'. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond mentioning the optionality of including executions, which is already in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's function: retrieving a full test-case card by id ('TestCase.filter by id'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like kiwi_search_cases by focusing on id-based retrieval and mentions the optional inclusion of related executions, giving a clear scope.

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?

Usage context is implied (use when you need a full test case by id), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like kiwi_search_cases or kiwi_update_case. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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