search_test_case

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

The description mentions it returns ID and version, but lacks details on behavior such as whether it searches across projects, case sensitivity, or error handling. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but does not sufficiently disclose behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences that convey the essential purpose and return information. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what happens when the key is not found, whether the search is exact, or the role of the optional projectId parameter. The tool is simple but the description could be more thorough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example key and mentioning return fields, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 that the tool searches for a test case by key and returns ID and version. It uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'test case' and distinguishes from sibling 'search_test_cases' which likely returns multiple results.

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 description implies usage when you have a specific test case key, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_test_cases' or 'get_test_case'. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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