List all tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape ({status, count, tests}) which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential size limits, pagination, or performance characteristics of listing the entire catalog, which would be valuable for a list-all operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and output fields, the second gives usage context, and the third specifies the return shape. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what the response contains and the purpose of the list, which is more than the empty schema provides. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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's function: 'List every test in the LabLoop catalog' with specific fields (id, name, abbreviation, category). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning labloop_find_test as an alternative when the find tool fails.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use to browse what is available, or when labloop_find_test cannot find what the user means.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the sibling find tool, which is strong guidance.

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