list_tests

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 indicates a read-only list operation, but does not disclose sorting behavior, pagination semantics beyond schema defaults, authentication requirements, or what fields are included in each test execution. The absence of these details leaves significant room for agent uncertainty.

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 sentence with no filler words, achieving high conciseness. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it is so terse that 'with optional filtering' adds little substance and could be seen as slightly redundant given the schema already documents filter parameters.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is minimally adequate but not complete. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not explain return shape, default ordering, pagination behavior, or the authentication context that the presence of username/password/token parameters implies. An agent could invoke it correctly with schema help, but not optimally.

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% and every parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the generic 'optional filtering' phrase. This is acceptable because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('test executions'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_test by the plural 'list' semantics, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The phrase 'with optional filtering' is generic but not misleading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_requests or get_test. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication via connect_clockwork, nor does it explain when filtering would be appropriate. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions provided.

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