get_cases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context not captured by annotations: client-side filtering occurs after fetching all cases, API-side filtering is more efficient, and output_file can save responses for large datasets. It also discloses that returns include IDs, titles, and requested fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value. It efficiently conveys scope, filtering options, and return fields without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers what is returned, how to filter efficiently, and references companion tools for finding IDs. Together with the schema, it gives the agent sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly for typical use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a useful high-level summary of filtering options (section, API params, where) but does not add syntax details beyond the schema. Given the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly, this is adequate.

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 all test cases for a project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling get_case (singular) by implying a bulk-list operation. It also lists key filtering capabilities, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use client-side 'where' vs API-side 'filter' (efficiency) and references get_case_fields, get_sections, and get_suites for prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_case or query_project for single-case or cross-project queries, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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