Cases in test run

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context about the returned fields (execution_id and status) but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 concise sentence, but the leading 'TestRun.get_cases:' is redundant with the tool name and consumes space. The core phrase 'run cases with execution_id and status' is brief but could be clearer. Overall, it is short and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return structure. It mentions execution_id and status but does not state whether the result is a list, how cases are ordered, or potential limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only), this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter run_id as 'Test run id' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning or contextual constraints beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline 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 indicates the tool retrieves run cases with execution_id and status, matching the name and title. However, the phrase 'run cases' is ambiguous (could be read as a verb phrase meaning to execute tests), and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kiwi_list_runs or kiwi_run_add_case.

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 versus alternatives such as kiwi_list_runs or kiwi_search_cases. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond the implied 'get cases for a run'.

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