List test case statuses

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by naming the underlying filter method and giving example values, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether all statuses are returned by default. No contradiction 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 extremely short but is not a well-formed sentence; it reads as a code comment or method signature. While there is no wasted text, the lack of a proper sentence structure and clear subject/predicate means it is under-specified rather than concise.

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 presence of many sibling list tools, the description should provide context about the domain (test case statuses) and the kinds of values returned. It only offers examples and a method name, leaving the agent to guess the tool's full functionality. A simple list tool could be fully described in one or two sentences, but this description is incomplete.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and query) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The mention of 'TestCaseStatus.filter' does not add semantic detail about parameter behavior beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'TestCaseStatus.filter: CONFIRMED, PROPOSED, DISABLED…' is a fragment that references the underlying RPC method and provides examples of statuses, but it does not explicitly state that the tool lists test case statuses. The title does clarify the purpose, but the description itself is vague and does not differentiate it from sibling lists such as kiwi_list_execution_statuses.

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 instead of other list tools. There are no alternatives mentioned, no context about when statuses are needed, and no exclusions. The description and annotations are silent on usage scenarios.

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