Read the persistent QA test suite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the concrete storage location, the three rendering modes, and the fact that a resource URI exposes the full suite (useful signal that summary/markdown may be lossy). It does not mention behavior when the suite file is absent or how large the output can get.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the file path and formats come early. The parenthetical plus 'plus a resource URI' tail is dense but each clause carries information, so little is wasted.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers the core (source file, filters, formats, resource URI fallback) but leaves sessionId/projectRoot unexplained and says nothing about empty results, default format, or result size. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (only 'functionality' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does cover format values and the functionality/status filtering intent, but sessionId and projectRoot are given no meaning anywhere, leaving two of five parameters opaque.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the repo suite') plus the exact backing file (.swipium/test-suite.json) and the three output formats. It implicitly separates itself from write-side siblings like qa_suite_update/qa_suite_generate by being the read path, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: consult the persisted suite, narrow with functionality/status, pick a format. There is no explicit when-to-use vs qa_suite_export or qa_app_map_read, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether the suite must exist or be generated first).

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