get_test_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating what comes back (steps, expected results, priority, custom fields) and that relations can be expanded in one request, which is useful when there is no output schema.

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 first two sentences restate the same fact ('Get a specific test case' / 'Retrieve a specific test case using its unique identifier'), which is wasted space. The remaining sentences are informative and front-loaded, so the redundancy is the main flaw rather than bloat.

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-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers identity of the resource and the shape of the return payload, which is the key missing piece. It could still note the required identifier path or error behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is absent.

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 reported as 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only touches the relations parameter ('include associated data in a single request') and says nothing about the required path/testCaseId parameter. The added meaning for 'with' is real but thin, and the identifier parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific test case') and anchors it to a unique identifier, which clearly separates it from the collection-style sibling get_test_case_collection. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the list-vs-single distinction is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use the relations parameter to include associated data in a single request,' which tells the agent when to use a parameter but not when to choose this tool over get_test_case_collection or other test-case readers. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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