Get Test Case Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it aggregates data. No contradictions, but no further disclosure of side effects or limitations.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, clearly presenting the tool's output. Slightly front-loaded but could be more structured, yet it remains efficient.

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's simplicity and good annotations/schema, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, but the description hints at a simple list. It could elaborate on the return structure, but it's not severely incomplete.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline for high coverage.

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 returns an aggregated card with specific fields (name, description, tags, etc.) as a simple list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like testcase_get and testcase_get_step by focusing on a simplified aggregated view.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose implies use for a simple aggregated view, it does not mention exclusions or compare with similar tools among many siblings.

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