hb_test_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the name. It does not say whether results are paginated, scoped, filtered, or whether the list is static or environment-dependent.

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, front-loaded phrase with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the purpose is conveyed immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is barely adequate. It leaves unanswered what a 'test battery' is in this system and how its output connects to hb_test_run, which is the key thing an agent needs for multi-step test workflows.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... test batteries'), so the agent knows this enumerates test batteries. It does not distinguish itself from siblings hb_test_run and hb_test_results, which also concern tests, so the agent must infer that this is the discovery/enumeration step rather than execution or result retrieval.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before hb_test_run to discover battery identifiers, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The agent must guess the ordering relative to the closely related test siblings.

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