Get Test Controls

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — a 90-day window on affectedRuns, a total plus the 10 latest, and precise definitions of the 'excluded' and 'critical' run categories. It stops short of describing auth requirements or pagination/limits on the rest of the payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the dense affectedRuns category explanation. Every sentence carries content, though the middle sentence packing two category definitions with em-dashes is somewhat heavy for a single read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it largely does: it names the four control fields plus the affectedRuns structure and window. Minor gaps remain about the shape of individual run entries beyond the total-plus-10 count.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for testcase_id ('the Playwright test id, as list_testcase returns it'), clarifying exactly which identifier to supply. projectId is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the Test Controls of one test') and enumerates exactly what is returned: assignee, critical flag, watch status, active quarantine, and affectedRuns. The phrase 'of one test' distinguishes it from the sibling list_test_controls without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied — it tells you the id comes from list_testcase, which is a useful invocation hint, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus list_test_controls or get_quarantine/quarantine_tests siblings. An agent can infer single-test lookup, but nothing is stated.

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