get_issue_test_coverage

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

Discloses composite nature (up to 2 HTTP calls per case), default cap (50), and that lastResult is null when never executed. Confirms readOnlyHint annotation. This adds significant context beyond 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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second explains technical details and caveats. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (composite, multiple API calls) and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior: null results, volume cap, default behavior, and composite nature. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but description adds value by explaining default values (maxCases=50, includeLastResults=true) and the purpose of each parameter in context of the composite operation.

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 it generates a traceability report listing linked test cases and their latest execution results. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_test_cases_linked_to_issue' by including results and calling it a composite read-only operation.

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 implies usage for obtaining test coverage with results, and warns about the number of HTTP calls, advising to cap volume with maxCases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only list is needed).

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