list_test_plans

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully describe behavior. It only states the basic operation, omitting details like default ordering, pagination limits, or whether partial project identification is allowed. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 clear sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It should include information about pagination and available filters without becoming verbose.

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 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain pagination parameters, sort syntax, or how to effectively filter results. An agent would lack critical usage context.

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 67%, leaving two parameters (search, sort) undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. For high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 'List test plans for a project.' clearly states the action (list) and resource (test plans), and scopes it to a project. It is specific enough to differentiate from single-get or mutation tools, but could explicitly note pagination or filtering capabilities.

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 (e.g., get_test_plan for a single plan), or how to choose between projectId and projectName. There is no mention of required parameters (none required) or pagination behavior.

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