List A/B tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the returned field set (status, live variant, winner), which is genuinely useful context. However it omits the 'failed' status value that the schema enum permits and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty results, so it only modestly exceeds what structured data already gives.

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?

It is short with no filler, but the sentence fragment lacks a verb and is not front-loaded around the action, which reads as under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A single clause such as 'List A/B tests, optionally filtered by status' would have been shorter and clearer.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should explain what a call returns (all tests vs. filtered, pagination, ordering) and how the status filter behaves; none of that is present. The only completeness strength is the enumeration of returned fields.

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% for the single 'status' parameter, so the description carries the burden, yet it never states that status is an input filter or what the default behavior is when omitted. It loosely glosses five of the six enum values ('collecting results' for 'collecting') but drops 'failed', leaving the parameter semantics under-explained.

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 ('A/B tests with their status...') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the listing action itself is only implied by the tool name and title. It does add real substance about what each test carries (status, live variant, winner), which helps separate it from get_ab_test and stop_ab_test, but it never says it returns the full collection.

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 at all: nothing says to use this for enumerating tests versus get_ab_test for a single test, and nothing mentions the optional status filter, ordering, or result limits. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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