add_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add', implying creation, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or return format. The behavior is under-specified.

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 extremely concise: one sentence of five words. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which limits its usefulness. Still, it earns a 4 for efficient use of space.

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 has 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, side effects, error states, or relationship to other tools. The agent cannot determine how to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The property names (e.g., refs, steps_separated, custom_steps_separated) are not self-explanatory. The description does not clarify any parameter meaning or usage beyond the schema field names.

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 the action ('Add') and resource ('test case'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_dataset or add_run, which have similar phrasing. Without further context, the agent may not know when to use this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many add_* siblings, and the description does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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