get_test_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about what 'full details' includes, such as steps, custom fields, dependencies, shareUrl, and optional linked autotests and edit history.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then lists the distinguishing detail fields without waste. Every phrase adds useful information.

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?

For a read-only single-case retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return content and optional toggles, and the schema covers all parameters. It could be slightly more explicit about error behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema fully describes all four parameters. The description adds high-level context about what the response will contain, but does not itself explain individual parameters; the excellent caseId guidance lives in the schema, not the description. This matches the high-coverage baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single test case'), and lists the key contained details. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_test_cases, which retrieve multiple cases, and get_test_history, which retrieves execution history.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need one full test case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like list_test_cases or search_tests, nor does it name any exclusions. Some usage guidance appears in the parameter description for caseId, but the main description itself lacks that routing.

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