Search Test Cases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior details: the query syntax rules, case-insensitive name search, exact tag matching, and the precedence of AQL over query when both are provided. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with separate sections for simple query and AQL syntax. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. Minor improvements could be removing the repeated link to AQL documentation (already in schema).

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers query and AQL syntax adequately. It addresses the key modes of use and links to external documentation. It does not explain the return format or pagination behavior, but these are partially covered by the schema (page/size parameters).

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It explains the query syntax in detail (plain text, tag:value, combined), and provides a comprehensive overview of AQL syntax (operators, precedence, comparison operators, field examples). This helps the agent understand how to construct valid queries.

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 tool searches for test cases by name, tag, or AQL query. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_test_cases' by offering search functionality with two distinct modes (simple and advanced). The verb 'search' and resource 'test cases' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use simple query (name/tag search) vs AQL (complex filtering). It provides examples and syntax guidance. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when listing all test cases without criteria, the sibling 'list_test_cases' might be more appropriate).

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