get_suite

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

The description indicates a read-only operation by stating 'Get details' and 'Returns...'. Since annotations are not provided, the description bears the full burden. It is clear that the tool does not mutate data, and it specifies the return fields. Although it does not explicitly state idempotency or lack of side effects, the wording strongly implies a safe fetch.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third specifies parameter usage. No extraneous information is present, and every sentence contributes value.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and parameter roles. It lacks details about error handling or response structure beyond listed fields, but it is generally adequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description merely repeats the schema information (e.g., 'Required: id (suite ID) Optional: project_id'). It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the 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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific test suite by ID.' It also lists the specific fields returned (title, description, parent_id, and other metadata), which helps the agent understand exactly what data to expect. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_suite, delete_suite, and list_suites.

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 identifies required and optional parameters: 'Required: id (suite ID) Optional: project_id'. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_suites (which lists all suites) or get_test_plan (which retrieves a different resource). There is no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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