Fetch test inventory (counts + statuses)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states 'Read-only', explains that never-run tests appear as NOT_RUN, distinguishes UNKNOWN due to executionHistoryError, and warns not to report such tests as not run. It also discloses that reusable blocks (R001) are counted separately and never carry execution status.

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 definition is long but every sentence carries distinct value: core purpose, usage examples, domain terminology, reusable-block exclusion, field meanings, and UNKNOWN status nuance. It is front-loaded with the key capability and keeps the sibling differentiation and edge-case warnings in clearly separated clauses.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the agent needs: return semantics, field names, status meanings, exclusions, identifier format, and the relationship to execution UUIDs. No critical calling information is missing.

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 single optional parameter is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the A001 example and omitting to include every analysis. The description restates this nearly verbatim, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description opens with a specific claim: 'authoritative tool for how many tests exist and their latest status', and clarifies it returns the FULL list of authored test cases joined with latest execution status. It explicitly contrasts with siblings by saying wopee_fetch_recent_executions and wopee_fetch_executed_test_cases 'return only test cases that have already run'.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example user questions ('how many tests do I have', 'list the scenarios/test cases in A001'). It also names alternative tools and tells the agent to prefer this one for totals or complete lists, and explains the scoping choice for analysisIdentifier (omit for all analyses).

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