qase_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual behavior by listing which entities require `code` and mentioning field projection support. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every word to convey entity scoping and field projection. 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 the rich schema and safety annotations, the description is complete for a generic retrieval tool. It explains the two key operational constraints (code requirement per entity type, field projection) and covers the main usage decision. No output schema exists, but return format is standard and implied.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail about `code` by enumerating exactly which entities need it, and reinforces the purpose of `fields`. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 clearly it gets any Qase entity by type and ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qase_case_upsert or qase_run_upsert by focusing on retrieval, and adds specificity by listing entity categories.

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 important usage context: it specifies when the `code` parameter is required (project-scoped entities) and when it can be omitted (global entities). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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