get_test_case

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so usefully: STEP_BY_STEP scripts return a numeric id per step that update_test_case and set_test_script match on. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation, though nothing is said about pagination or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, then the step-id caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, with only mild density in the parenthetical.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return ('the test case object as the API sends it, restricted to fields when given') and the step-id structure. Enough for an agent to call and interpret the result, though it doesn't note what happens for non-step scripts or missing keys.

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 already documents both testCaseKey and fields. The phrase 'restricted to fields when given' adds only light confirmation of the fields parameter's effect, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one test case') and even gives the underlying endpoint GET /testcase/{testCaseKey}. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_test_cases, create_test_case, and delete_test_case.

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?

Routes the agent concretely: read step ids before editing steps by hand with update_test_case or set_test_script, and notes add_test_steps does that automation for you. It gives clear context and alternatives, but never explicitly states when to prefer this over search_test_cases.

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