search_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that results include most recent execution status and reliability metrics, but it does not disclose pagination, default limits, or any query semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 focused: two sentences, the first stating the core action and the second giving practical guidance. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema-property details.

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 search tool with a well-documented schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It names the search criteria, result content, and a use case. The main gap is that it does not explicitly discuss output format or suggest any sibling alternative for non-searching workflows, which would slightly strengthen 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds general vocabulary like 'title, file path, or tags' that maps to the query parameter, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the input schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('tests'), the supported search dimensions ('title, file path, or tags'), and what is returned (execution status and reliability metrics). This allows an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_test_cases or get_case_execution_history.

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 gives clear usage context ('Use this to find tests related to a specific feature or area'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, such as when listing all tests without a search query or when retrieving full detail for a single test.

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