List Test Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and lists the displayed fields, which provides some additional behavioral context but not rich detail on aspects like performance or auth requirements.

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 two sentences that are direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately covers the return fields and pagination. However, it does not explain the pagination structure (e.g., total pages) or what happens with an empty result, though these are minor omissions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (page, size, output_format) with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, thus meeting the baseline.

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 clear verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'Test Plans for the current project.' It also specifies that the list is paginated and returns IDs, names, and test case counts, which distinguishes it from other sibling tools like create_test_plan or delete_test_plan.

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 description implies use for retrieving all test plans but does not explicitly state when to use an alternative or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate.

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