Search test cases (project-wide)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is client-side, case-insensitive, read-only, and notes that the Zephyr API lacks full-text search. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four sentences, each providing essential information. The most critical point (project-wide, not scoped) appears first. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is fully complete. It explains behavior, limitations, and alternatives. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 both parameters are described already. The description adds valuable context: query matches key/name/objective and empty returns all, and projectKey is the Jira/Zephyr key. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 it performs a PROJECT-WIDE search across all test cases in a project, matching key/name/objective, and distinguishes itself from scoped searches by specifying it's not for a specific story. The verb 'search' and resource 'test cases' are explicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when you do NOT have a Jira issue key or need to look beyond a single story) and when not to use (do not use to get tests of a specific issue). It also provides two named alternatives: list_story_test_cases and review_story_coverage.

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