list_ab_tests

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: reads are safe and have no effect, declaring a winner is irreversible and sends to the held-back audience, and early results on small samples should be treated with care. It also notes the API key requirement and that no winner means the test is still open.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused. Sentences like 'Reads only' and 'Requires an API key' slightly repeat information already implied by annotations or earlier text, but the extra caveats about small samples and winner selection earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately summarizes return content ('each variant's results and whether a winner has been picked yet') and provides safety and interpretation guidance. It does not detail response format or error cases, but for a simple list endpoint with optional pagination params, this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters (page, type, limit) are already described clearly in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details, which is acceptable since the schema carries the full burden here.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List A/B tests on the account' and adds expected outputs: 'each variant's results and whether a winner has been picked yet.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like create_ab_test and select_ab_test_winner.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it to see which tests are still running and which are waiting on a decision.' It also warns that declaring a winner is a separate, irreversible action, providing an implicit when-not. It does not name the specific alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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