list_test_plan_configurations

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 known without the description. The description adds only a scope hint (test-point-level configurations) and says nothing about pagination, result count, or whether configuration objects are returned in full or truncated.

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?

At eight words there is zero waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing: a sentence fragment with no verb is not a well-formed tool description. It is front-loaded in the sense that the resource is stated immediately.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still cannot tell what comes back — configuration IDs, names, or full config bodies — or whether results are paginated. The description provides no more than the title-level concept, leaving a real gap for invocation planning.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "Test plan UUID," so the schema carries all semantic weight. The description adds a scoping nuance (the configurations are those used by test points) but nothing about the id parameter beyond the schema.

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 is a noun phrase — "Configurations used by the test points of a test plan" — with no verb, so it never explicitly states that it retrieves or lists anything; the retrieval action is inferred only from the tool name. It does identify the specific resource (test-point configurations scoped to one plan), which distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_configurations, but the fragment form leaves the action implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_test_suite_configurations or list_configurations, despite these being plausible confusions. The agent must infer the selection rule from the noun phrase alone.

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