list_automation_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; "does not run them" reinforces but largely restates readOnly. The added value is the enumeration of returned fields (including truncated, matched_count, total_count) in the absence of an output schema, but these are bare names with no description of truncation or pagination behavior.

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 read-only/list purpose before the return field enumeration, and there is no filler prose. The field dump is long but compact and informative given the missing output schema.

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 two-parameter read-only lister with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it doesn't execute, and roughly what comes back. It is nearly complete; only explicit routing against the other automation-test tools and any truncation behavior are left implicit.

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% for both parameters (filter as case-insensitive substring over full test path, max_results default 500), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes filter and max_results as return fields and adds no new parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 registered automation tests in the editor") and immediately delimits it against the run-style siblings with "read-only; does not run them." An agent can distinguish it from run_automation_test, run_smoke_tests, and get_automation_test_results without opening a 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?

Implies the use case (browsing/enumerating tests rather than executing them) via "does not run them," but never states when to prefer this over get_automation_test_results or run_automation_test, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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