List Test Cases

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are returned in execution order, testCaseId returns a full case with request config, assertions, and response extractions, and project context is required. This gives the agent a meaningful picture of tool 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?

Two tightly written sentences cover the main use case, the alternate single-case mode, the dependency between the two identifiers, and the project-context prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only listing tool: it explains both modes, the required context, and what the detailed mode returns. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the list response shape could be helpful, but the description combined with the thorough input schema covers the essential invocation decisions.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, including defaults and the relationship between testCaseId and testSuiteId. The description reinforces that relationship and adds the execution-order nuance, but it does not substantially deepen parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: listing the test cases of a suite in execution order. It also distinguishes the two modes of the tool (list vs. single test case in full), making it easy to differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools such as list_test_suites or list_test_results.

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 clear guidance on when to use the testCaseId mode versus the testSuiteId mode, including that testSuiteId is unnecessary when testCaseId is provided. It also notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use the tool, but the usage conditions are clear enough.

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