List Test Cases In A Run

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, but the description adds real value the annotation does not: the shape of each returned row (caseKey like "TC-156", title, current assignee, current result/status values such as "untested"/"passed"/"failed"). It does not mention pagination behavior or what a filtered-empty response looks like, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return-shape detail and the workflow hint. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema and 10 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so at the row level. It never explicitly states that the field consumed by update_run_test_case is named 'rtcRef' in the response or how paging totals are returned, leaving minor gaps for a tool of this size.

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 description coverage is 70%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description reinforces assignee ('email or User _id') and result/status filtering, matching what the schema already says, but adds nothing about page, limit, search, sortBy, or sortOrder — so no credit beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'per-case execution records inside a manual run', clarified with the concrete analogue 'rows in the run's test-case table'. That scope distinguishes it cleanly from list_manual_runs (runs) and get_manual_run (run metadata) without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow rule: 'Use this before update_run_test_case so you have the rtcRef for each case you want to update', plus the filter conditions it supports. It names the follow-up tool rather than a competing alternative and states no when-not-to-use case, so it falls just short of a 5.

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