qase_ci_report

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

Annotations cover read-only and destructive hints, but the description adds substantial extra behavior: it replaces three API calls, leaves no half-open run, splits batches over 200 across requests, caps at 2000 results, and gives cost/performance tradeoffs. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema alone tell the agent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, alternatives, batching, cost, and performance. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers decision-relevant details in a logical order.

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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves at scale, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing needed for correct invocation or selection is missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter details. The description reinforces that each result needs a numeric case_id plus status and may carry duration, comment, stacktrace, and attachment hashes, but this mostly mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: report a whole CI run in one call by creating the run, recording results, and completing it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from qase_result_record and qase_run_upsert, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says this is for a pipeline that has just finished, and names the exact alternatives: use qase_result_record when the run already exists and results arrive in stages, and qase_run_upsert when the run must be left open. This is model guidance for choosing among siblings.

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