get_suites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists suites; it does not disclose pagination, return format, ordering, scope limits (e.g., whether closed/archived suites are included), or authentication requirements.

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?

Five words with zero waste and a front-loaded verb. It is appropriately terse for a single-parameter read tool, though it sacrifices a small amount of informational density for brevity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but omits behavioral context such as pagination, what fields are returned, and how this differs from get_suite. Adequate for the simplest case, but a capable agent would still need to guess at return semantics.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for a project' loosely reinforces that project_id scopes the query, but the description adds no details beyond the schema's own 'Project ID' documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('suites'), and a scoping qualifier ('for a project'). It distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings (add_suite, update_suite, delete_suite) and, via the plural form, from get_suite, though that differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_suite (listing all suites vs. retrieving one suite) or any other sibling. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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