list_run_test_cases

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns rows with case identity, assignee, and status. No mention of destructive behavior or rate limits, but it is transparent about return data and filtering capabilities.

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 with four sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose and UI analogy, then details row contents, filters, and a usage recommendation. No unnecessary words.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it describes the return fields, filters, and relationship to update_run_test_case. It lacks details on pagination and sorting but those are partially covered in the schema.

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 70%, and the description adds practical context beyond the schema, such as explaining that assignee can be email or User _id and that result accepts display or canonical forms. It also notes the alias status for result.

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 'Get the per-case execution records inside a manual run' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_run_details and update_run_test_case by focusing on per-case execution records.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before update_run_test_case to obtain rtcRef. It provides clear context for filtering by assignee or result but does not explicitly exclude other use cases.

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