list_tests

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

With no annotations, the transparent description of listing and filtering suffices for a simple read operation. However, it does not disclose potential behavior like pagination, sorting, or performance considerations. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and the rest is efficiently structured.

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 optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It provides enough context for an agent to use it, though it could mention return format or edge cases like empty results.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description lists the filterable dimensions (status, type, team, or platform), adding context beyond the schema's enum lists. It does not explain enum values or parameter relationships, providing only marginal added meaning.

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 it lists tests, covering both in-campaign A/B tests and vendor/partner evaluations, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_test' that likely fetch individual tests. The verb 'List' and resource 'tests' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context by listing what it covers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test' for single test details. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity.

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