list_test_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists test plans, without indicating whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a potentially safe listing operation, the lack of any safety or side-effect context is a gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that clearly states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, avoiding any extraneous text.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for most use cases. However, it does not detail the return format (e.g., list of test plan IDs, full objects, or metadata), which could be relevant for agents expecting a specific structure. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on return content would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all test plans in the workspace'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_test_plan (which targets a single plan) and create_test_plan (which creates), so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 usage for enumerating all test plans, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_test_plan for a specific plan. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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