search_test_cases

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: returns total count and paginated data with specific fields, recursive mode returns only total/folderCount, projectId must be numeric. Adequate for a search tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then critical usage details.

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?

Covers return structure (total, paginated data with fields) and behavior (recursive mode). No output schema, but description sufficiently sets expectations. Could mention default pagination, but schema covers that.

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 has 100% coverage, but description adds value by clarifying that status/priority are string names, projectId is numeric, and recursive mode behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool searches test cases in a project with optional filters and returns paginated data. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_test_cycles, search_test_plans) by focusing on test cases.

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?

Provides specific guidance on using status/priority name strings instead of IDs, and explains the recursive mode behavior. Lacks explicit alternative tool mentions, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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