list_tests

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a non-mutating listing operation, but does not state whether the search recurses into subdirectories, whether paths are absolute or relative, or what happens if the directory is invalid.

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 front-loads the core action and resource with no filler. Every word contributes to the call contract.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource type and scope, and the schema covers the parameter. The main missing context is traversal behavior and the exact shape of the returned file list.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the directory parameter as the location to search for .jmx files. The description adds no substantial semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('JMeter test files (.jmx)'), and a scope ('in a directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_test_file (single file) and create_test_plan (new creation), even without naming them.

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 intended use is implied: when you need an inventory of .jmx files in a directory. However, the description gives no explicit 'use this instead of read_test_file' guidance or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the best sibling choice.

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