get_test_cases_by_automation_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions filtering by automation state and references another tool for state options. It lacks critical behavioral details such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'size' params but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid states. For a read operation with 8 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful tip in parentheses. The emojis ('🤖', '💡') add visual cues without compromising brevity. Every element serves a clear purpose.

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 operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary filtering logic and references a related tool, but lacks details on pagination, output structure, error handling, or performance considerations. With no annotations to fill gaps, it leaves the agent with incomplete operational context.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering by automation state, which is already covered in the schema. It references 'get_automation_states' for state options, but this doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('test cases') with the specific filtering criterion ('by automation state'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_test_cases_advanced' or 'get_test_case_by_filter' by specifying the automation state filter, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them. The emojis add visual emphasis but don't detract from clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool by mentioning 'get_automation_states' to see available states, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare it to alternative filtering tools like 'get_test_cases_advanced', leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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