Get Test Case Scenario

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that the output is a 'Normalized scenario JSON', which gives a hint about the return format but does not elaborate on permissions, performance, or any edge cases. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 concise, consisting of a single noun phrase with parenthetical details. While it is efficient, a complete sentence would improve readability. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., 'Retrieves the normalized scenario JSON including scenarioSteps, step bodies, and expected results.')

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 get operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description is minimally complete. It mentions the key output components but does not explain what 'normalized' means or what the JSON structure looks like. Without an output schema, more context about return values would be beneficial, but the current level is acceptable.

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 provides a clear description for the required 'id' parameter ('Allure test case ID (same as in TestOps UI / URL)'). With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not add additional meaning. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns 'Normalized scenario JSON' and lists components (scenarioSteps, step bodies, expected results). This clearly indicates it retrieves scenario data for a test case, distinguishing it from siblings like testcase_get_step which returns a single step. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', but the tool name compensates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like testcase_get_step or testcase_get_detail. Without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites, the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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