list_test_suite_test_points

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 useful payload context by characterizing a test point as work item x configuration with status and tester. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering, which is a meaningful omission for a list operation with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying parenthetical placed where it is immediately useful. No filler, nothing redundant with the name.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and payload shape adequately. The remaining gap is behavioral detail such as pagination or result limits, which matters more here since no output schema exists to compensate.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Test suite UUID.'), so the schema already does the work. The description only restates that the id refers to a test suite, adding no format, validation, or sourcing guidance 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (test points) scoped to a parent (a test suite), and the parenthetical defines what a test point actually is (work item x configuration, with status and tester). This is much clearer than a bare name restatement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as list_test_suite_test_results or search_test_points.

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 scope 'of a test suite' plus the required suite id implies the usage context (you know which suite you want points for), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as search_test_points. An agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling names alone.

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