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. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (despite page and size parameters), idempotency, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description is too brief for transparency.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on pagination, response format, error conditions, and other essential context for correct invocation. An agent would need additional information to use it effectively.

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 low (33%), but the description does not explain the meaning of page and size parameters. It only highlights projectId implicitly by saying to get it via list-projects, but does not elaborate on its format or constraints. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 'List test plans in a project', which is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools, it is distinct from other list tools like list-test-cases or list-launches. The resource and action are 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 provides a helpful prerequisite: 'Use list-projects first to get projectId.' However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-test-plan, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guideline is minimal but useful.

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