testneo_suggest_api_test_chains

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

States 'Read-only' and provides the HTTP method (GET), disclosing safety. No annotations are provided, so the description partially covers behavioral needs, but it could mention return format or potential side effects (though none expected).

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 succinct sentences: first gives purpose, second adds behavioral and usage context. Every sentence is essential, front-loaded with key information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and usage context, but lacks detail on the returned data structure (chains, summaries) and potential errors.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not elaborate on the `project_id` parameter beyond implying it identifies a project. It adds minimal value over the schema's type and constraints. Parameter meaning is left implicit.

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 it scans Swagger/NLP-derived tests and returns suggested business-flow chains. It uses specific verbs ('Scan', 'return') and resource ('API-style web tests for a project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it is read-only and should be used before save/run operations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before recommending which suite to run or before testneo_save_api_test_chain / testneo_run_api_test_chain', providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming specific alternatives.

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