get_automation_states

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 states the tool retrieves data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with project data.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose with an emoji for visual clarity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output details. With no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (project and format). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of automation states or output format implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('automation states for a project'), specifying that it retrieves names and IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_test_cases_by_automation_state' by focusing on available states rather than test cases, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project identifier, or compare it to siblings like 'get_available_projects' or 'get_test_cases_by_automation_state' for context.

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