list_tests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states that tests are not run, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not clarify whether the listing reads from file system or cache, if there are performance implications, or the exact return format. The transparency is adequate but lacks depth.

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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without significantly increasing length.

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?

The tool has low complexity with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is sparse; it does not mention return structure or behavior beyond the basic listing. While it covers the essential point, it could be more complete by specifying the output format or noting that it reads from the project directory.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely says 'List all tests', which contradicts the filtering capability of the parameters. Since the parameters are optional, the 'all' might be interpreted as without filters, but the description could be clearer. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' to indicate a read-only operation, identifies the resource as 'tests', and distinguishes itself from run_tests by explicitly stating 'without running them'. It also mentions the returned information (spec file and tags), making the purpose very clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_failed_tests or run_tests. The description simply states what it does without suggesting appropriate context or prerequisites.

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