tarn_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It partially fulfills this by stating it returns file names, test names, and step counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or performance impact.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the return value immediately following. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simplicity of a listing tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return format. It could be enhanced by noting that only tests in .tarn.yaml files are listed, which is already clear, but no significant gaps remain.

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 covers 100% of the two parameters (cwd and path) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'tests', and the source '.tarn.yaml files'. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like tarn_run (execution) and tarn_inspect (detailed view) by specifying the output: file names, test names, and step counts.

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 implies usage when you need to enumerate available tests, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it (e.g., when a filtered search is needed) nor compare to alternative siblings directly.

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