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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations lack: the required 'testing:read' scope and the workspace-bounded result set. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, then the domain model, then the invocation constraint, then the when-to-use routing, then the auth requirement. Every clause carries distinct information — the field list is the only part that competes with the output schema, and it serves to define the concept.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still names the fields an agent will see. For a parameterless read tool it covers purpose, object model, routing to siblings, and required scope — nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly says 'Takes no parameters', which confirms the empty schema rather than leaving the agent to infer it, but it adds no further parameter meaning because there is none to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the sweeps in your workspace') and then defines the domain object itself: a sweep runs one standard test once per caller persona, exposing id, name, description, testConfigId and profileIds. An agent can distinguish this from listSweepRuns, listTestConfigs and listProfiles without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: the user asks what sweeps exist or names one', plus named routing for adjacent needs — getTestConfig to resolve the test, listProfiles for personas, listSweepRuns for runs. The alternatives and the condition that selects each are spelled out rather than implied.

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