Get Test Case Custom Fields

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get', implying a read operation, but lacks details on idempotency, authorization requirements, or response behavior. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence—concise but lacking structure. It conveys the core purpose without waste, but could be more informative without adding verbosity. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, but more content would be helpful.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return format, pagination (if any), or relationship to other custom field endpoints. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without sufficient context to interpret the tool's results or limitations.

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 describes both parameters (id and projectId) with clear descriptions. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the minimum but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get custom field values for a test case', clearly identifying the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like testcase_get, which may also return custom fields. A brief note on uniqueness would improve clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives such as testcase_get (which retrieves a full test case) or project_get_custom_field_values. The description should specify that this tool targets a single test case by ID and project ID.

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