List Test Units

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful behavioral nuance about automatic default-regimen registration, which helps the agent understand what appears in the list. However, it does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation or disclose any other behavioral traits like profile existence checks or potential errors.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point: 'List the registered test units for a profile'. The parenthetical adds a relevant behavioral note without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a useful edge case. However, it lacks mention of what a 'profile' is or where to obtain it, and it doesn't hint at the return format (e.g., array of unit names). Given the broader toolset includes profile-related siblings like `list_profiles`, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'profile' as the scope but provides no additional detail beyond that—no format (ID vs. name), no source, no validation rules. The single parameter is minimally explained, leaving the agent to infer what a 'profile' is from the tool name and context.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a resource ('test units'), and a scope ('for a profile'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like `register_test_unit` or `run_test_regimen` because it names the read-only listing behavior explicitly.

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 when to use the tool (to see registered test units) and adds the nuance that the default regimen is auto-registered, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using this instead of `validate_test_unit` or `run_test_regimen`, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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