Fetch test inventory (counts + statuses)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses read-only semantics, that never-run tests appear as NOT_RUN, the reusable-block (R001) exclusion rule with reusableBlockCount, and the scoping behavior of the optional analysisIdentifier.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value statement, then progresses logically through return contents, terminology, reusable blocks, read-only note, and parameter behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information without redundancy or fluff despite its length.

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?

Without an output schema, the description skillfully covers the return semantics (full inventory, NOT_RUN inclusion, reusableBlockCount) and the domain model anomalies. It could marginally enrich the exact shape of the return object, but is quite complete for a single optional-parameter read tool.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds clarity on the omit-behavior ('to include every analysis in the project') and enriches the conceptual meaning of the parameter with the default scope, making the semantics crisper than the schema description alone.

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?

Opens with the specific, value-dense claim "The authoritative tool for how many tests exist and their latest status" and clarifies it returns the FULL list of authored tests joined with execution status. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming what they lack (only executed tests).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete example questions ('how many tests do I have', 'list the scenarios/test cases in A001') and names the exact alternative tools to prefer over, explaining the key distinction: those return only already-run test cases.

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