Search test plans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the 'filter' verb, so no contradiction. The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that KIWI_PROJECT is used as a default when product is omitted, which is not visible in annotations alone. It does not discuss return formatting or pagination, but the schema already covers the limit parameter.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('filter by name, product, type, and active flag') and then provide the default behavior. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition of schema details.

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 simple list/filter tool, the description is largely complete: it names the filters and the default project behavior. No output schema exists, but the tool name 'list_plans' implies a list of plans. It could be improved by explicitly noting that it returns matching test plans, but given the clarity of filters, it is sufficient.

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 schema descriptions cover all five parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps 'name' to the 'query' parameter and adds the KIWI_PROJECT fallback for 'product', which adds some semantic value beyond the schema. However, it does not significantly enhance the other 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 clearly identifies the tool as a filtering operation on TestPlan with specific attributes: name, product, type, and active flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiwi_plan_tree which likely return a hierarchical view, while kiwi_list_plans is a flat search.

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 provides clear context on the tool's scope: it filters test plans by name, product, type, and active status. It also notes the fallback to KIWI_PROJECT when product is omitted, which helps in understanding when the tool will apply a default project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to an alternative tool.

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