get_manual_test_case

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

No annotations, so description fully handles transparency. Discloses that versions and results are read-only, and details the activity inline with limits (latest 20 versions, latest 100 results). Leaves no ambiguity about behavior.

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?

Description is slightly verbose but each sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details activity. Could trim a few words but overall 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?

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains what is returned: steps, custom fields, preconditions, metadata, and activity with specifics. Covers parameters, limits, and behavior. Complete for its purpose.

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%, but description adds useful semantics: projectId is TestDino identifier, caseId accepts internal _id or human-readable ID like 'TC-123'. Adds clarity beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves detailed info of a single manual test case, including steps, custom fields, preconditions, metadata, and activity. Distinguishes from update_manual_test_case and other get tools.

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?

Provides guidance to use update_manual_test_case for mutations. Implicitly clarifies that this is a read-only tool. Does not exhaustively list when to use over other get tools, but context is clear.

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