get_test_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds useful context that it returns test plan items (test cases) and requires a project, going beyond 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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant words, efficient and clear.

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 tool with output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description provides essential information (purpose, parameter semantics) and is complete enough. No gaps noted.

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 descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the description adds significant meaning: plan can be ID or name, and the lookup is scoped to a project. This compensates for the low schema description detail.

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?

Clearly states 'Get test plan details including its items (test cases)', which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like list_test_plans (list all) and get_test_case (single test case) by specifying 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?

Indicates that it accepts plan ID or name within a project, giving some context on how to identify the plan, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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