list_test_suites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds the underlying API method names and describes the conditional behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination, or return format. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then provides conditional detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand what to pass and what to expect. It explains the two modes clearly. It might benefit from mentioning return values, but the absence is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates the parentSuiteId behavior already documented in the schema, adding no new semantic detail. It does not fully compensate for any potential gaps, but none exist given full schema coverage.

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 specifically states the tool lists test suites, distinguishing top-level suites for a project from child suites when parentSuiteId is supplied. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_test_cases_in_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 gives clear context on when to use parentSuiteId to list child suites versus top-level suites, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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