Call any Kiwi TCMS API method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'any Kiwi TCMS JSON-RPC method' and includes destructive examples like TestPlan.remove_case, which hints at broad capabilities including mutating actions. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving the agent to infer these from the API docs link.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does and gives examples; the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 generic JSON-RPC passthrough tool, the description is adequately complete: it provides the API documentation URL, examples, and an explicit use condition. The absence of an output schema means the description need not detail return values. It could mention error handling or authentication, but these are less critical for a generic RPC tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'method' and 'params' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, but the schema already defines the pattern for method names and the flexible params type, so the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Direct call to any Kiwi TCMS JSON-RPC method.' It provides concrete examples (TestPlan.remove_case, TestExecution.add_link, Bug.filter, Tag.filter) and explicitly tells the agent to use this tool when no specialized tool exists, distinguishing it from the many sibling 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?

The phrase 'Use when no specialized tool exists' is explicit guidance for when to select this tool over alternatives. It implies that if a specialized sibling tool (e.g., kiwi_create_run, kiwi_get_case) is available, this general-purpose RPC tool should not be used.

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