Get Test Manager Test Case Instance by ID

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

No annotations provided, so description fully handles behavioral disclosure. States read-only, does not modify, explains effect scope (run-level only, not underlying test case status), and lists included fields (result, timing, remarks, environment, per-step results).

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?

Description is somewhat long but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, then terminology clarification, then detail on output and behavior. Could be slightly more concise, but efficient for the complexity.

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 no output schema, description provides adequate overview of returned data: instance result, timing, remarks, environment, per-step results with own status/outcome/remarks and step IDs. Lacks explicit mention of all possible fields, but sufficient for understanding.

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 0%, so description must explain parameter. It defines test_instance_id as numeric ID, distinguishes from test_case_id, and tells how to get it (from sibling tool's 'Instance ID' field). Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves full detail for one specific test case instance, clarifies terminology differentiating from test case, and contrasts with sibling tool tm.get_testCaseInstancesByTestRunId which lacks this detailed output.

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 says when to use (need full detail for one instance), contrasts with sibling tool, and states read-only nature. Could be improved by explicitly listing when not to use, but clear enough.

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