get_test_case_by_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'partial match search' and 'pagination support', it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens when no matches are found, or the structure of returned data. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Get test cases by title' establishes the purpose, 'partial match search' clarifies the search behavior, and 'pagination support' indicates scalability features. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (test case objects, their structure, or error formats), doesn't mention authentication or rate limiting, and provides no context about the Zebrunner system it operates on. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'partial match search' (implied by the 'title' parameter description) and 'pagination support' (implied by 'page_token' and 'max_page_size'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose: 'Get test cases by title using partial match search with pagination support.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('test cases'), and key functionality ('partial match search', 'pagination support'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_case_by_key' or 'get_test_case_by_filter', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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. With many sibling tools for retrieving test cases (e.g., 'get_test_case_by_key', 'get_test_case_by_filter', 'get_test_cases_advanced'), there's no indication of when this partial-title-search approach is preferred or what distinguishes it from other search methods.

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