list_tests

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

While no annotations are provided, the description discloses the specific commands executed for each test framework and indicates the return format (逐行 nodeid / 檔名清單). It implies a read-only operation (collection) and is transparent about the mechanics. It could mention that it is non-destructive, but the context strongly suggests it.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by framework-specific details and usage notes. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality, return format, and usage context. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error handling or behavior when no tests are found, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to document parameters since there are none, and it adds value by describing the tool's behavior without needing parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool lists executable tests using native collection mechanisms for multiple frameworks (pytest, Jest, Cypress, Go, Maestro). It uses specific verbs ('列出') and resource ('可執行測試'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting its use before run_tests and generate_test.

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?

Explicitly says '用法：run_tests 前確認 collection 沒漏、generate_test 前避免跟既有 case 重複', which tells when to use the tool and implies when not to (before running tests or generating tests). This is clear guidance on usage context.

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