list_test_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists filters and provides an example but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The example and filter details add some transparency, but there is room for improvement.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a bulleted filter list, and a JSON example. While slightly verbose at around 150 words, every sentence contributes meaning. It could be a bit more concise without losing clarity.

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 23 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the filter parameters thoroughly and includes an example. However, it lacks explanation of the return format or behavior when no results are found. The tool is a list operation, so return structure is important context missing here.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief listing of filters and an example, which provides some additional context but largely mirrors the schema descriptions. The value added is modest.

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 'test plans', and the context 'from a TestCollab project'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_suites and list_test_cases by being specific to test plans with filtering, sorting, and pagination.

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 explicitly mentions optional filtering, sorting, and pagination, and provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_test_plan for a single plan or create_test_plan for creating. The usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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