List test plans

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly communicates a read-only listing operation and an optional name filter, but it does not disclose details such as pagination, result ordering, whether the filter is exact or substring, or what fields each test plan includes.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds the optional filter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, simple list operation the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, missing details like return shape, pagination behavior, and filter semantics leave gaps for an agent that needs to consume the results.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description only restates the project scope and optional name filter without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('test plans') with a clear scope ('of a project') and an optional filter. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_test_runs or list_projects without needing to open the 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?

It provides clear context: use this tool when you need test plans belonging to a project, optionally narrowed by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-based naming makes the intended use unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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