ado_testcases_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return content (work item ID and title) and hints at the limitation by pointing to a more detailed tool. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering, but those are less critical for a simple list tool with a 'top' parameter in the schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The action and return value are front-loaded, followed by a single, useful redirect to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns 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 simple list tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and fully documented parameters, the description covers the purpose, the return format, and the primary alternative. Nothing essential is missing; an agent can invoke it correctly using the schema and this description.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'test cases assigned to a suite,' and explicitly notes what it returns (work item ID and title). It also differentiates itself from ado_workitems_get, which provides full details, so there is no ambiguity about scope.

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 description explicitly names the alternative tool (ado_workitems_get) and specifies the condition for using it ('for full test case details including steps'), making the usage context clear. It implies this tool is for listing test cases in a suite, which is self-evident from the purpose.

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