kiwi_get_test_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful filtering semantics beyond the schema by showing accepted query keys like product, name__icontains, and is_active. However, it does not disclose default behavior, return format, pagination, or whether it returns all plans when query is empty.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement followed by a tight set of query-key examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 search tool with one opaque parameter and no output schema, the description covers query construction but omits expected return behavior and default query semantics. Since there are no annotations or schema-level descriptions, this leaves some ambiguity, though basic usage is inferable.

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 only defines 'query' as an object with additionalProperties allowed and no property documentation. The description compensates meaningfully by listing common accepted keys and example values, giving concrete guidance that the schema alone does not provide. It is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient for typical searches.

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 states a specific action ('Search test plans') with a clear resource and filtering scope, making it easy to understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from test case or test run getters.

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 verb 'Search' and the example query keys imply the tool is used to find or filter test plans, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparisons are provided. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so usage is mostly implied.

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