get_test_case_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, permissions, or data limitations. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no further context is given (e.g., whether the call is expensive or requires project scoping). This is a significant gap with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise, using a single sentence. While there is no wasted text, the brevity leaves out important details (e.g., return format, parameter usage). It is minimally acceptable but could benefit from structured clarification.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain return values, the relationship between projectId and projectName, or how this tool differs from related siblings like 'get_test_case'. The tool is thus incomplete in contextual coverage.

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%, with each parameter having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Test case ID. Must be a number (integer), not a string.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, achieving the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'custom field values for a test case', making the tool's purpose apparent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_test_case' (which might include custom fields) or 'list_custom_field_values' (which lists all custom fields), so it lacks precise differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_test_case_custom_fields' or 'get_test_case'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, requiring the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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