query_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the action-based dispatch model, which the schema already encodes via const values, and says nothing about pagination or result size handling.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation description front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its second sentence on a fact the schema already states, leaving little room for genuinely additive content.

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 read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits the status filtering, field selection, and large-dataset output_file escape hatch that the schema exposes, and leaves the get_tests overlap unresolved.

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 every parameter (test_id, run_id, fields, status_id, output_file) is already documented with examples in the schema. The description only restates the action toggle, adding no meaning beyond structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single test by ID or all tests for a test run in TestRail') and names the exact dispatching field. It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_tests, which plausibly covers the same ground.

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 how to select the operation ('Set payload.action to one or many'), which is invocation mechanics rather than when-to-use guidance. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternative tools like get_tests or get_results.

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