get_test_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: the response omits scenario/steps and self-documents this via a 'steps_not_included': true marker. It does not cover not-found/error behavior or any permission requirements, which are the remaining gaps for a read tool with readOnly implications left unstated.

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?

Front-loads the action and returned fields, then the exclusion and its workaround. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly awkward line wrapping and quoted flag name cost it polish but no clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description usefully flags the one surprising omission in that output. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only error/not-found semantics are left uncovered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By id' confirms test_case_id is the lookup key, but adds no meaning beyond the self-explanatory parameter name — no format hints, no note on where the id comes from (e.g., from list_test_cases or search results).

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 one test case by id') and enumerates the payload fields it returns (texts, status, workflow, testLayer, tags, links). It also distinguishes itself from get_test_case_steps by declaring what it does not return, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule for the most likely confusion: steps are not here, use get_test_case_steps. That is clear context plus one concrete alternative. It stops short of saying when to use this versus list_test_cases or search_test_cases to look up an id in the first place.

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