list_test_cases

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

Annotations only declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful behavioral facts beyond those: the response metadata offers status/priority options, each case includes a shareUrl, and the search parameter matches case numbers including with the 'TC-' prefix. This illuminates exactly how the tool behaves when invoked, more than a generic read operation would.

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 compact, to the point, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a filter summary, mentions the result metadata, and then describes the important search workflow in an actionable way. Every sentence earned its place; there is no redundant padding or tautological phrasing.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially ambiguous search-by-displayId workflow, the description supplies the missing operational details: response metadata, shareUrl, and the exact TC-number search mapping. It does not list every output field, but it is provided enough context for an agent to select and call the tool correctly in the common list/filter and displayId resolution scenarios.

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?

Since the schema already describes all 10 parameters with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics primarily to the search parameter by explaining prefix matching and how to extract the internal id, and it gives a canonical example with 'TC-30'. It does not add detailed semantics for every filter, but the value is above the 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 opens with 'List test cases in a project with filtering and pagination,' which names a specific verb and resource and gives the tool an unmistakable scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_executions, list_folders, list_projects) by the target resource 'test cases' and from the broad search_tests sibling by framing the operation as listing with filters.

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 goes beyond 'when to call' by providing a specific workflow: pass search: 'TC-30' to map a user-facing displayId to an internal numeric id. It does not, however, mention when NOT to use this tool or call out alternatives such as search_tests or get_test_case, so no explicit exclusion is provided.

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