test_cases_archived_list

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

The description declares that only archived test cases are returned, which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It could mention that it is read-only, but the behavior is clear.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a tag line. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns and the required filters. It could mention pagination, but it is not critical for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, other than restating the requirement for at least one parameter.

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 'List archived test cases' and specifies it returns only archived ones with statusId === ARCHIVED. It distinguishes from siblings like test_cases_list and test_cases_unarchive.

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 explicitly states that at least one of projectId or folderId is required, giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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