list_project_autotest_namespaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include classes alongside namespaces, but says nothing about how projectId vs projectName affect the lookup or what happens when neither is supplied, leaving real behavioral gaps for a read tool with two optional identifiers.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource stated first and the use case appended. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly fragmentary rather than a full statement of what the tool does.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool without an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values in detail. Still, for a filter-support tool with two zero-coverage parameters, it should clarify how to identify the project and roughly what the namespace/class entries look like.

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% and the description mentions neither projectId nor projectName. With two undocumented parameters and no guidance on whether they are alternatives or complements, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a concrete resource (autotest namespaces of a project, with their classes) and states its downstream purpose (feeding filters for search_autotests). The verb is only implicit from the tool name 'list', but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_autotests or list_projects.

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 parenthetical '(for filtering search_autotests)' gives an implied when-to-use by linking it to a sibling, which is more than nothing. However, it never states when not to call it, whether it should be called before search_autotests, or how it relates to any other listing tool.

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