get_case_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that omitting project_id returns all fields across all projects, making the scope transparent. It also discloses the return format ('types and options for dropdown fields'), going beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, parameter guidance, and return info. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant phrasing, and every sentence contributes value. Structurally excellent.

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 tool with one optional parameter, high-quality annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it returns, how to scope it, and the behavior when omitted. There are no significant gaps for the complexity level.

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 schema already provides a detailed description of project_id, covering both the normal use case and the fallback behavior. The tool description mostly reiterates this information without adding new semantic details about parameter formatting, constraints, or usage beyond the schema coverage, which is 100%.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the field schema for test cases for a specific project.' It specifies the resource (field schema), the scope (test cases, project), and the return content (fields with types and options). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cases or get_templates which manage test data rather than 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'You should normally provide project_id to get fields applicable to your project' and notes that omitting it is 'rarely what you want.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, it clearly instructs when to use the parameter and when not, which is strong usage direction for a simple tool.

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