list_test_invocations_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no filtering semantics.

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?

It is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. The single phrase carries no information an agent could not already get from the name, so it does not earn 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 four-parameter paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what a 'test invocation' represents and how pagination/filtering combine. None of that is present; only the safety hints from annotations fill part of the gap.

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%: cursor, search, agent_id, and page_size are all documented in the input schema, including the page_size cap of 100 and default of 30. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 'List Test Invocations' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (list_test_invocations_route) and its title. It names a verb and resource but adds no scope, distinguishing detail, or sibling differentiation against the many other list_*/get_*_route tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_invocation_route (single invocation) or other listing endpoints. No prerequisites, filters, or exclusions are mentioned; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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