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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intent to list all test plans, but does not clarify whether the result includes archived plans, pagination behavior, or the structure of returned objects. The parenthetical API method provides minimal additional context.

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 exceptionally concise—a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. The parenthetical API method is optional but not distracting. No unnecessary words.

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?

This is a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, which is sufficient for basic selection, but it misses details about return values, edge cases, or how the parameter maps to the 'project' concept. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects a minimally viable but incomplete description.

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 has a single parameter (testProjectId) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only implies the parameter is connected to 'for a project' but does not explicitly identify testProjectId as the project identifier or explain how to determine its value. It adds very little beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('test plans') with a specific scope ('for a project'). It also includes the underlying API method (tl.getProjectTestPlans), which adds implementational clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_test_suites or list_builds.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with similar listing tools such as list_test_suites or list_builds.

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