get_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (IDs, titles, additional fields), filtering types (API-side efficient vs client-side for custom fields), and implies a read operation. Lacks detail on pagination or performance implications but is otherwise transparent.

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 purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds distinct information: retrieval scope, filtering options, and return content. Highly 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?

Given 5 parameters (nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: required parameter, filter options, and return fields. It lacks mention of pagination or error handling, but is largely complete for typical use.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the difference between filter (efficient, API-side) and where (client-side for custom fields), and clarifies the fields parameter. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 action ('Get all test cases for a project'), specifies filtering options, and indicates the return fields (IDs, titles, additional fields). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_case (single case) or add_case (creation).

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 clear context for use (retrieving test cases with filters) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., get_case for a single case, add_case for creation). Sibling names imply alternatives but are not referenced.

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