Get linked test plans for a test cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning pagination (despite startAt and maxResults in the schema), the response format, or any limitations/permissions. The description 'Get all' might be misleading given pagination parameters expect partial results. The lack of detail on safety (read-only) or performance impact reduces transparency.

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 that conveys the primary action efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it could benefit from additional context about pagination or return type without significantly increasing length, so it is not a 5 but still well-structured.

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 five parameters (including pagination) and no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate with behavior details. It fails to mention that the tool returns a list of test plan objects, that it supports pagination, or how sorting/field selection work. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent, leaving many gaps about the expected response and usage.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters beyond what the schema provides. As per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters well, and the description does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get all test plans linked to a test cycle' clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('test plans'), and the scope ('linked to a test cycle'). The title and name align well, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-qmetry-test-cycle (gets the cycle itself) and get-test-plan-test-cycles (does the reverse).

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage (e.g., when you need to retrieve plans linked to a specific cycle), but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to siblings like search-qmetry-test-plans or get-test-plan-test-cycles. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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