list_test_suites

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds behavioral context: it accepts project ID or name (clarifying the string parameter) and optional parent filter for nested suites. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key parameters. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has only 3 parameters, good annotations, and an output schema (handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does and key parameter meanings. Could mention default limit (50) from schema, but it's not critical.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema: 'project' can be ID or name (schema only says 'string that will be trimmed'), 'parent' is for nested suites (schema only says 'string that will be trimmed'). This enriches understanding without repeating schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List test suites in a test project' with specific verb 'List' and resource 'test suites'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_suite or get_test_suite by its listing nature, and adds scope details (project ID or name, optional parent filter).

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: to list test suites. It doesn't mention when not to use, but given the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_test_suite for a single suite, create_test_suite for creation), the usage is clear. Lacks explicit exclusions but is adequate.

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