list_atf_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination behavior), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key filtering capability without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 this is a read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about output format, pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter), error conditions, and how results are structured. For a tool that returns potentially complex data, more guidance would be helpful despite the good schema coverage.

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 description mentions 'optionally filtered by suite' which corresponds to the 'suite_sys_id' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions clearly explain all three parameters, so the description adds minimal value. With complete schema coverage, 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 verb 'List' and resource 'ATF test cases', making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering by suite, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_atf_suites' or 'list_atf_test_results', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filtering by suite, it doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate, what happens without filtering, or how this differs from other listing tools like 'list_atf_suites' or 'get_atf_test'. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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