List draft test cases

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe read operation; the description adds that the list reflects the current draft contents and includes the ids used by the deletion tool. No behavior such as pagination or errors is described, but for this simple read-only list the annotation coverage is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the only extra detail an agent needs (id linkage to deletion). No filler or repetition.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough context to invoke correctly. It ties the result to a related deletion command, and no important behavioral or return-value detail is missing.

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% with a clear description for session_id, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline.

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 names the exact operation ('List') and resource ('test cases currently stored in a draft'), and explicitly mentions the per-case ids needed by repovive_build_delete_testcase, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/clear/delete testcases.

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?

It gives clear context that this is for inspecting a draft's test cases and connects the output to repovive_build_delete_testcase by providing the needed ids. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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