List testers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read only' in the description is redundant rather than informative. The description does add real context by disclosing the composition of results (testers with their projects and groups), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for a workspace-wide listing.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its filters, with no filler prose. The trailing fragments 'Read only. Team.' are telegraphic and 'Team' conveys nothing actionable, costing it a perfect score.

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 no-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned and how to narrow it, which is most of what an agent needs. The only real omission is behavior when both filters are combined and any sense of result size.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including that project expects an id from list_projects, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one project (id) or one group (name)' merely restates the schema's typing and adds no exclusive-selection semantics.

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?

Names the resource (testers of the workspace) and what each record carries (projects and groups), plus the two filtering modes, which distinguishes it from write-side siblings like add_testers and remove_testers. The verb is only implied through the name/title ('List') rather than stated in the description, and it does not explicitly separate itself from list_tester_groups.

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?

'Optionally only those of one project (id) or one group (name)' gives the agent concrete filtering contexts, so usage is implied and inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_tester_groups or when-not guidance, and nothing says what happens if both filters are supplied.

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