search_test_cases

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the HTTP method, that results are raw API JSON, and explains the summaryContains prefix behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, leaving some ambiguity.

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: two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, return type, pagination, and a specific filter behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return value (raw JSON with fields like data, total, startAt, maxResults). It lacks detail on the structure of 'data' and potential errors, but for a search endpoint, the coverage is reasonable.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the prefix logic for summaryContains and that startAt/maxResults control paging, which is not obvious from schema alone.

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 it is a paginated POST endpoint for searching test cases, returning raw API JSON. It specifies the HTTP method and resource path, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing pagination and raw output.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_test_case or list_all_project_test_cases. The description focuses on mechanics (paging, summary filter) but does not provide context for selection.

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