testneo_list_saved_api_test_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and shows the HTTP method, indicating no mutation. However, it does not mention error handling, pagination, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. Additional transparency about the return format would improve this.

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 is a single sentence with the endpoint appended. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 is a simple list with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned test chains, pagination, or sorting. The agent might need additional context to use the output effectively, but the description is minimally complete.

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 has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal context for project_id by saying 'for a web project', which clarifies the parameter's role. While this is helpful, it does not explain how to obtain the project_id or the parameter's format beyond the schema constraints.

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 states the action ('list'), resource ('user-saved API test chain suites'), and scope ('for a web project'). It also mentions the output includes 'ordered test_case_ids'. This distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like testneo_save_api_test_chain and testneo_list_tests_by_tags.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or specify prerequisites. The read-only note and endpoint provide some context but not enough for an agent to decide between this and other list tools.

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