testneo_find_test_cases

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

Discloses read-only status and search matches name/description per API rules. Lacks details on pagination, sorting, rate limits, error conditions, or return format beyond id and name.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral note. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Covers basic purpose, API endpoint, and how to chain with sibling tools. Missing details about return structure (beyond id, name), potential errors, and empty results. Adequate for a simple list tool but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implies project_id and search parameters but provides no explanation for limit and skip. It adds value by hinting at output fields (id, name), but parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 lists web test cases via text search, specifying the API endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like testneo_list_tests_by_tags by indicating it uses '?search=' rather than tags, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on using the returned id and name with testneo_run_generated_test_pipeline or passing project_id and name_query to run by name. However, it does not compare against alternatives like testneo_list_tests_by_tags for when to use each.

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