get_atf_suite

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only 'including test count,' which provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose other potential behaviors, side effects, or the scope of returned data beyond that hint.

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 a single, brief sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It mentions the return includes 'test count,' but with no output schema and openWorldHint, more detail about possible fields or structure would improve completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single parameter 'sys_id_or_name'. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('test suite'), and specifically mentions what is included ('test count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_atf_suites (which returns a list) and get_atf_test (which targets a single test, not a suite).

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate (e.g., list_atf_suites for multiple suites, get_atf_suite_result for results). Without such context, an AI agent may not correctly select this tool.

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