ado_testplans_list

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the return fields and highlighting the root suite ID's role in creating child suites. It does not contradict the annotations and adds practical behavioral context about the output's downstream use.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second explains the significance of one field. No redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded. 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 read-only list tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the returned fields and provides a downstream usage pointer, covering what an agent needs to decide whether to call it and interpret 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters ('top' with max results and 'project' with default), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List test plans') and the resource ('in an Azure DevOps project'), and specifies the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ado_testplans_get (which presumably retrieves a single plan) and ado_testplans_create (which creates plans).

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 provides a concrete use case: the root suite ID is needed for creating child suites with ado_testsuites_create. This implies when to use it (when you need plan IDs or root suite IDs for downstream operations), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for common scenarios.

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